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

Reply via email to