I almost pooped myself on that one Ralph :-) Good one! Gary
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, 17:19 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 5:17 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:09:18 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: > >>>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 11:06 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:01:08 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Gilles < > gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:48:28 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Gilles < > gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:09:22 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:01 AM, ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Gilles < > gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> given component and see if we want to only depend on java.base > or create > >>>>>>>>> Maven modules to compartmentalize dependencies. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Then these modules can define "module-info" files, and an actual > >>>>>>>> build will prove that the dependencies are as expected. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As Ralph as pointed out, you cannot generate a module-info file > without > >>>>>>> also using an MR Jar unless you also want to make Java 9 your base > line. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Did you see, a few lines above: "[...] assuming JDK 9+ [...]"? ;-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Related note: Java 9 is the target for compiling > >>>>>> "commons-rng-examples" (maven module) > >>>>>> in "Commons RNG" because one of the examples is composed of > >>>>>> JPMS modules (with "module-info" files) that depend on the > >>>>>> "official" artefacts (targeting Java 6) that declare an > >>>>>> "automatic module name" in the manifest. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Right now > >>>>> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-rdf.git;a=blob;f=pom.xml;h=06cc58c19b79af5cdf2f3d29d9a743c8adb2b548;hb=HEAD > >>>>> shows Java 8 as the target. > >>>>> > >>>>> Are you taking about changing that to Java 9? > >>>>> > >>>>> I'll that choice to the Common RDF community but it seems that this > would > >>>>> exclude a lot of users. > >>>> > >>>> As for "Commons RNG", the purpose may just be to prove (by > >>>> usage) that the maven modules are also JPMS modules. > >>> > >>> > >>> I am so confused. I am not sure what the goal is. Let me put it this > >>> way. Log4j 2 2.x supports Java 7+. We added support for Java 9 by > >>> introducing a multi-release jar. Android developers can not use any > >>> version of Log4j since we did that. What I am saying is that if you > >>> turn any jar into a multi-release jar it will no longer be usable in > >>> Android and there is no way around it until Android Studio is fixed. > >>> The problem is that the android tool inspects every class file in the > >>> jar even if it is located under META-INF and it dies if it sees a Java > >>> 9 class. > >>> > >>> Ralph > >> > >> I've asked on this list about leveraging the new features of > >> JDK 9 in the upcoming release of [RNG]. When it came to > >> multi-release JAR, I trusted Gary's expedite answer ("Don't > >> do it") based, as yours, on experience. So, no issue. > >> > >> Yet I also wanted to ensure that the maven modules were > >> JPMS-compliant: Would the declared "Automatic-Module-Name" > >> behave as expected on JDK 9? > >> No answer for that one. So I resorted to create a "dummy" > >> application (see "commons-rng-examples/examples-jpms"). > >> I guess the same could be done for [RDF] unless there is a > >> smarter way. ;-) > > > > We have not run into any problems with adding the Automatic-Module-Name > header to the manifest. > > > > I should have also added that maybe it would be a good idea to make all > the Commons jars multi-release. That might generate enough complaints to > get Google to fix the issue. > > I am not serious ;-) > > Ralph > >
