Le mar. 9 avr. 2019 à 14:11, Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > On Apr 9, 2019, at 7:21 AM, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Le mar. 9 avr. 2019 à 13:03, sebb <seb...@gmail.com > > <mailto:seb...@gmail.com>> a écrit : > >> > >> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:43, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> [...] > >>>>> > >>>>> $ git diff pom.xml > >>>>> diff --git a/pom.xml b/pom.xml > >>>>> index 2612dd6..54a88e4 100644 > >>>>> --- a/pom.xml > >>>>> +++ b/pom.xml > >>>>> @@ -570,6 +570,7 @@ > >>>>> > >>>>> <Implementation-Build>${implementation.build}</Implementation-Build> > >>>>> > >>>>> <X-Compile-Source-JDK>${maven.compiler.source}</X-Compile-Source-JDK> > >>>>> > >>>>> <X-Compile-Target-JDK>${maven.compiler.target}</X-Compile-Target-JDK> > >>>>> + > >>>>> <Automatic-Module-Name>${commons.module.name}</Automatic-Module-Name> > >>> > >>> ${commons.automatic.module.name} > >>> > >>>>> </manifestEntries> > >>>>> </archive> > >>>>> </configuration> > >>>>> @@ -1608,6 +1609,9 @@ > >>>>> <maven.compiler.source>1.3</maven.compiler.source> > >>>>> <maven.compiler.target>1.3</maven.compiler.target> > >>>>> > >>>>> + <!-- Module name for Java 9, and beyond --> > >>>>> + <commons.module.name>${project.artifactId}</commons.module.name> > >>> > >>> No default should be defined (to avoid the risk of creating incompatible > >>> but identically named modules). > >> > >> Surely that *should* be solved by using groupId + artifactId? > > > > From > > https://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-se-9-jpms-module-naming.html > > <https://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-se-9-jpms-module-naming.html> > > ---CUT--- > > Module names must be valid Java identifiers! E.g. no Java keywords, no > > dashes, no... > > ---CUT--- > > > >> We change one or the other when releasing an incompatible module. > >> > >>> Then the release plugin could be enhanced (?) so that it would check > >>> whether the variable has been defined for each JAR to be created (and > >>> fail the build otherwise). > >> > >> But how would that ensure incompatible modules were given different names? > > > > It would not. > > [IIUC, same issue with OSGI config.] > > If it’s the same issue as OSGI, should we not then use the same value as we > do with OSGI, which we already have?
The requirements/limitations are not necessarily the same. Also, the parent cannot know the specifics of each component, in particular for modular projects. Gilles > >>> > >>>>> + > >>>>> <!-- compiler and surefire plugin settings for "java" profiles --> > >>>>> <commons.compiler.fork>false</commons.compiler.fork> > >>>>> <commons.compiler.compilerVersion /> > >>>>> > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
