> You are correct (you’re safe). Lucene has bumped the minimum JDK > to 17, right? If so, you could use MethodHandles.Lookup::ensureInitialized.
It'll probably go into the 9x branch which will remain on older JDKs. That Class.forName trick is so simple and straightforward that I think I'm going to stick to it for now. > Nothing specific, just that if we’re injecting code into the module > (patching the module for unit testing purposes), then even the secrets > (currently in the product code), could be effectively injected too. Right, I get you now. Yes - indeed it could be completely separate but then everyone using the test framework module (it is published as part of Lucene artifacts) would have to remember and somehow apply the patch options... I'd rather just go for simplicity here - if you require the lucene framework module, it'll just work, no patching needed. As much as I like playing with the jms, the effort required to get the tools to a reasonably working state is still significant. > I was mostly thinking of how the IDE would react to —-patch-module, and > whether or not it could handle things like auto-complete, etc, from > consuming code whose view point just sees the patched module as one > complete unit. I doubt it'll work the way you describe it. But hey, it's Christmas time - excellent time for good wishes. ;) D. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
