Proposal: #AutomaticModuleNames (revised)
forax at univ-mlv.fr
Sun May 7 19:12:15 UTC 2017
----- Mail original -----
> De: "Robert Scholte" <rfscholte at apache.org>
> À: jpms-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net
> Envoyé: Dimanche 7 Mai 2017 20:50:05
> Objet: Re: Proposal: #AutomaticModuleNames (revised)
> With the support of the Automatic-Module-Name attribute in the MANIFEST
> file all library developers can help their users to provide the intended
> module name.
> However, for library developers depending on jars that will never become a
> module it is very frustrating that they can never distribute their jar as
> a modular jar, unless they shade+relocate those classes or switch to other
> libraries. Especially for library developers it is a matter of "all or
> nothing", and the attribute will help with the active projects if they are
> willing to provide this attribute. But if you depend on just 1 automodule
> WITHOUT the attribute, you're forced (adviced) to not add a module
> descriptor. Those are the consequences of these decisions.
you can rename the jar or use a better library (a maintained one !).
> I still think that the loose/soft modules is a better fit for the
> community and maybe it is better to not support both automatic modules and
> loose/soft modules. Knowing that the decision to have automatic modules is
> not part of any discussion anymore, the Automatic-Module-Name attribute is
> a minimum requirement to help migrating.
no, because with loose modules, everyone will start to name its dependencies with the name he wants and it will rapidly become a mess,
imagine jboss and spring (or any other frameworks) using the same library with two different names.
> I agree on the recommendation to use reverse DNS for modules names.
so am i.
More information about the jpms-spec-experts