Hi, I’ld like to confirm something, because I see suggestions to “build X as a modular app” or “build as a modular jar” and I’m wondering if I’m missing something. These options don’t seem to be practical for most applications.
Does this not require ALL dependencies - down the entire dependency chain, including every transitive dependency, to be 100% modular? I don’t know of many applications outside of those included in the JDK (where dependencies are not an option) that this restriction actually applies to. In fact since Java 11 there is a regression where applications that could be built as modular with JDK 9 & 10 no longer can be, because the java.activation module was removed and no modular replacement is available. Many dependency chains lead to java.activation. Am I correct that this is the current state of things when trying to create a Java module? I feel I must be missing something because I’m not seeing the expected complaints over the app-breaking regression of the removed modules no longer being available as modules. Is it just that nobody is making modular apps yet? Regards, Scott > On Jan 14, 2019, at 9:34 AM, Andy Herrick <andy.herr...@oracle.com> wrote: > … > you can avoid that by running jlink first, and creating a minimal jdk-11.0.1 > runtime image for your app, or by building EazyCNC.jar as a modular app (or > as a modular jar which you may have already done for all I know)
