On Wed, 8 May 2024 08:30:39 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti <rgiulie...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Move all random generators mandated in package `java.util.random` and >> currently implemented in module `jdk.random` to module `java.base`, and >> remove module `jdk.random`. > > Raffaello Giulietti has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > Removed empty line. oh lol, makes sense then. It's wild though -- I always thought that deleting an entire module would count as a backwards incompatible thing. On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 1:00 AM Alan Bateman ***@***.***> wrote: > Hey, I'm just curious -- why was the solution to remove an entire module? > I understand the point of moving the relevant code over to java.base, but > I don't understand why removing the random module made sense. > > With the implementations moved, the jdk.random module didn't contain any > classes. A placeholder module could have been left in place for this using > jlink that might have a script that adds this module but it didn't seem > worth it to do this for a release or two. It was a different answer for > jdk.cryto.ec before it was removed. That module existed since JDK 9 so > more likely be used in jlink scripts. > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/18932#issuecomment-2148858435>, or > unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJFR6SBJJMKKIZYHUOWJLSDZF2LPZAVCNFSM6AAAAABGW67KJ2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNBYHA2TQNBTGU> > . > You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: > ***@***.***> > ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18932#issuecomment-2148883348
