On 07/13/2016 04:17 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
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
Also note that the discussion tapered off inconclusively before really
discussing the possibility of selectively opening the package-private
level to friends. The above links are mostly about the idea of changing
package-private to mean module-private, which was dismissed as problematic.
Using the selective extension of package-private does not suffer from
the fatal security problems caused by simple recompilation from -target
8 to -target 9. The status quo is maintained in this case; users would
have to opt in to extending access, just as Jigsaw requires users to opt
in to make public classes available right now.
--
- DML
