Continuing from discussions in todays PMC meeting:
We currently have a proposal tracking Java 9 compatibility here:
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/Java-9-Compatibility
I have updated it with more details.
The is also a PR containing a number of preliminary changes required for
Java 9 Compatibility awaiting review here:
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/pull/1798
At this point, the next steps for Java 9 (and future) compatibility
are *blocked
awaiting PMC discussion and consensus*:
In order to support the module system, some amount of API changes are
required (For a helpful primer on the module system, read The State of the
Module System <http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/sotms>)
The major issue we are currently facing is the new constraint that *any two
modules must not export the same package*. In other words, no two modules
may make the same package accessible to any other module (so two modules
containing the same package is OK, as long as only one of those modules
makes that package visible).
This is primarily an issue in the core library classes, particularly
between gt-api/gt-main/gt-referencing, and between gt-data/gt-jdbc. There
are also some issues with gt-process and plugins which implement their own
processes.
A few options have been identified for handling this issue:
1. Retain current names, and change package structure
Under this approach, all geotools modules would remain standalone modules
under the Java Module System.
However, packages within each module would be renamed so as not to violate
the duplicate package restriction.
This would cause massive API changes across core GeoTools, and is not
recommended.
2. Combine modules which share packages.
Under this approach, geotools modules with significant shared packages
would be combined into a single Java module.
This would require structural changes to certain parts of the GeoTools
repo, and dependency changes for downstream projects, but would result in
minimal API changes.
Given that this will be a substantial change to several core parts of
GeoTools regardless of what approach is taken, some measure of consensus
from the PMC is required before moving forward.
Also, if anyone can think of a third approach, suggestions are welcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
