As far as I can see, we use setAccessible in our plugin loader? Can that be a problem?
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2017-May/012571.html On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > I got further clarification on the jigsaw dev list. > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2017-May/012562.html < > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2017-May/012562.html>. > I am still waiting for an answer about the impact to our plugin system, but > I am pretty sure it will continue to work as is. > > It seems that we should be able to make most of the modules be “proper” > modules with a few simple changes. The biggest impact will be that we can’t > properly modularize log4j-core until Disruptor and Jackson are modules, > since we can’t remove those as optional dependencies from core. We should > move everything else that has a dependency to other modules. Those will > also have to wait to be “proper” modules until their dependencies are, but > they can all use the manifest entry to declare their module names. > > As for the circularity, there is none because log4j-api will not specify > that it requires log4j-core. It will bind to its implementation through a > ServiceProvider. I’ve already written that and will commit that portion in > a few days. That change doesn’t require Java 9 and will be backward > compatible. > > As for the actual modularization, I still think we should wait to declare > them, at least until the dust settles and we are closer to an actual > release. But I think we should continue looking at breaking stuff out of > core to make it easier to create the modules when the time comes. > > Ralph > > > > On May 9, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > While it may sound reasonable, it is not. Matt’s point about > LoggerFinder and our support of NoSQL appenders and the like is proof that > there are valid reasons for circularities. We are just lucky that Jackson > and Disruptor don’t seem to do logging or we would have circularities there > too. > > > > BTW - I got a private answer to my question on this. It was that I > should post my question to the jigsaw dev list but that I should expect > that Log4j - or at least pieces of it - can’t be modularized. > > > > Ralph > > > >> On May 9, 2017, at 8:24 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> On May 9, 2017 12:18 AM, "Remko Popma" <[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Mark Reinhold's reasoning in his response ( > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/ > >> pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2017-May/000695.html) makes sense to me. > >> > >> > >> Sounds reasonable indeed. Reading this latest sounds like JBoss has a > lot > >> of work to do in order to fit in Java 9 modules from its own module > system > >> and they'd rather not do more work than less, which is understandable. > MR's > >> view on a conservative first cut makes sense. It is so late in the Java > 9 > >> timeframe that these change requests seem doomed anyway. > >> > >> Gary > > -- [image: MagineTV] *Mikael Ståldal* Senior software developer *Magine TV* [email protected] Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.
