Robert, in the SOTM document, it explicitly calls out that Module systems are not required to support multiple versions of a module. Correct me if wrong, but I think you're hinting at that?
Cheers, Paul On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> wrote: > Op Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:45:32 +0100 schreef Jonathan Gibbons < > jonathan.gibb...@oracle.com>: > > > >> >> On 01/14/2016 12:25 PM, e...@zusammenkunft.net wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> If I understood it correctly the modules on the MP must be unique and >>> are not merged, thats why the order inside the directory does not matter >>> for the named modules. >>> >>> Bernd >>> >>> >> Let me refine that for you ... >> >> The modules in each directory on the module path must be unique. A >> module with a specific name in a directory on the module path will shadow >> (hide) any other module with the same name in a later directory on the path. >> >> So, the order of directories on the module path matters (just like the >> order of entries on a class path matters), but the "order" of entries >> within any specific directory on the module path does not matter. >> >> -- Jon >> >> >> > Suppose there's a logging module and a fat module, which also contains the > classes of the logging module, but older. > In my module-info I have > requires logging; > requires fat; > > These modules are in the same directory. Which class is loaded first and > why? If it is the order in the module-info, then I would also like to see > an example of the strategy with "requires public". > > thanks, > Robert > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
