pbenedict at apache.org
Fri Dec 4 19:50:06 UTC 2015
Reinier, you raise a good point. Rather than the command line, what if the
Security Policy File could have a new permission that allows module
boundaries to be broken? This would allow you to control which jars can
have free reign; probably useful for framework libraries like Spring.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot <reinier at zwitserloot.com
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>
> > This seems a bit pessimistic. One thing that would be helpful is to get
> > more help testing of these libraries with the EA builds. If there are
> > libraries and applications on the class path today that are using core
> > reflection then they should continue to work as they do in JDK 8. The
> > *only* issue *starting out* should be where core reflection is being used
> > to get at JDK internal types, in which case a command-line option might
> > needed to keep those deployments working.
> Emphasis mine: "only"?
> "Just add some command line switches" is not exactly a nice solution. From
> personal experience, the vast majority of java users do not know how to add
> configure command line switches to the various compile and build VMs being
> started by their build tools of choice, for example. Also, not something
> Alan mentioned here: Adding the command line switches is currently the
> _ONLY_ solution, so tools that are aware of the issue can't even fix it,
> other than by mangling modules (bad idea, I think we all agree on that I
> assume), or advising the userbase not to actually USE any of the modularity
> features and, preferably, to avoid switching to JDK9 altogether.
> Emphasis mine: "starting out"?
> This gets back to an earlier issue I raised on this mailing list: Okay,
> starting out this isn't an issue, but by having no way to opt out of
> export-based access control, it's a bit like switching from driving on the
> left side of the road to the right: Unless the entire greater java
> community switches in the same instant, we're all going to have a bad time.
> A way to opt out needs to exist, and the fact that the discussion is still
> going, and no plans have even been stated yet, means in my opinion that
> jigsaw is not fully baked yet.
> --Reinier Zwitserloot
More information about the jigsaw-dev