2016/7/11 7:21:46 -0700, david.ll...@redhat.com: > ... > > I propose, once again, that rather than changing the meaning of "public" > to something unintuitive (and indeed counter to the definition of the > actual word), we instead allow the selective extension of > package-private. ...
FYI, to jigsaw-dev readers: This approach was discussed on the JPMS EG list late last year. Here are links to the relevant messages: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2015-November/000194.html http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2015-December/000215.html http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2015-December/000219.html http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2015-December/000222.html http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2015-December/000223.html http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2015-December/000227.html http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2015-December/000228.html - Mark
