I have my doubts about the module system but I am not sure why you would think multi-release jars will cause problems.
Ralph > On Aug 9, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Jörg Schaible < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> Hi Simon, >> >> Simon Spero wrote: >> >>> Compress HEAD is tested against the equivalent of RC. The main issues >> were >>> with tests; some types of mocking (especially of concrete classes) don't >>> work. This might have been fixed by now. >>> I believe that the latest jacoco is 9 compatible. >>> >>> [The biggest problem was caused by a bug in the zip code handling a >>> particular kind of timestamp; massive changes to the jdk implementation >> of >>> zip caused tests that had been passing (but shouldn't have) to fail >>> properly.] >>> >>> NOTE: >>> >>> Adding a Module name manifest header asserts that the code is tested >>> against Java 9. This is documented in the minutes of the armistice talks. >>> >>> jigsaw modules are pretty useless for most of Commons (consumers pretty >>> much have to shade dependencies). [ subliminal whisper about benefits of >>> having correct OSGI headers] >> >> OK, that means we should at least test those releases that contain a Module >> name now and silently assume, that the other stuff is not necessarily >> compatible. Do we have an overview, which components were released with >> such >> a name? >> >> Cheers, >> Jörg >> >> BWT: I am also not convinced by the benefits of Java 9 looking at the >> module >> system or the multi-version jars. I fear they will rather harm the Java >> ecosystem. >> > > Very sad indeed. These are all "features" that break applications left and > right. > > Gary > > >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>
