Implied readability + layers

Ali Ebrahimi ali.ebrahimi1781 at
Thu Nov 5 22:02:00 UTC 2015


On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Alex Buckley <alex.buckley at>

> On 11/5/2015 1:30 AM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
>> Hi alan,
>> So far quite disappointing!
>> But I think Alex's last response on this topic says opposite of this:
>> "We'll have to think about the implication of com.baz in layer1 sometimes
>> offering a 'requires public' on in layer1, and sometimes offering
>> a
>> 'requires public' on in layer2, depending on who is reading
>> com.baz
>> in layer1."
> Alan and I have discussed this. It's not possible for com.baz in layer1 to
> "switch" which it depends on.

I never said we do version switch for in com.baz in layer1 depend
on its consumer module.
I just say we use at 1 for layer1's modules and at 2 for layer2's
You may say it is possible (not always) at 1 passed to layer2 and we
what we can do.
This is simple: Or transfer to layer1 or refactor that to 2 module
com.foobaz and com.foobar2 and transfer com.foobaz to layer1.

See my previous posts for current implementation unexpected results.

This is simple for all module system and module developers module and
module consumers  and there would not be any puzzle.


Best Regards,
Ali Ebrahimi

More information about the jigsaw-dev mailing list