If I may opine on this matter -- and do so respectfully toward all parties mentioned -- aside from Tim Ellison responding first, every other message is between David and Mark. The discussion thread is a really good read and a strong point/counterpoint match. However, there are 9 people on the Expert Group [1]. What do the other 6 experts think? Being an observer, I can see nothing but public discussion, and so all appearances on this list tell me the item was left unresolved. I have no idea where the EG actually stands as a whole on David's suggestion. I remember reading these exchanges live, and curiously wondering why there are no additional agreements or disagreements? My best theory then and now is this: Thanksgiving and Christmas happened. It appears the holidays interrupted. Just my 2 cents.
[1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/ Cheers, Paul On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:38 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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 >