JPMS Module Path question

Peter Kriens peter.kriens at
Thu Jun 15 14:51:10 UTC 2017

I agree with you that it is a useful document but I think it is very confusing that certain sections are now just wrong. A warning might help prevent confusion.

Kind regards,

	Peter Kriens

> On 15 Jun 2017, at 16:18, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at> wrote:
> On 15/06/2017 13:44, Peter Kriens wrote:
>> Thanks Alan.
>> This link seems very out of date when I compare it with the actual drafts. Might be an idea to update, remove or mark it as stale?
> That document is a summary of the changes for integrating modules into the JLS and JVMS. If you are looking for the actual changes to the JLS and JVMS then the drafts are linked from the next paragraph.
> The summary document has been really useful to document several aspects of the proposed changes in advance of the actual changes to the specs. It will be familiar to those that have been tracking the JSR and EA builds over the last 20 months or so. I've found it particularly useful as a document to point the maintainers of tools at when there are questions about the binary format of a module declaration. I can't speak for Alex but I believe that it will be hollowed out to be just the summary of the changes.
> -Alan

More information about the jpms-spec-observers mailing list