On 14/07/16 11:28, Alan Bateman wrote: >> > Yes, indeed, and that is potentially a significant problem. My >> > comment stands: there is a serious possibility that his will make it >> > impossible to use (non-exported) Jigsaw modules for some kinds of >> > programming. This is exactly the kind of decision that needs all >> > stakeholders to be consulted. >> > >> > It ought to be possible to have some kind of conditional export which >> > only allows such access by (e.g.) suitably privileged frameworks or >> > tools. But I have no desire to get involved in such design issues: I >> > am only going to say that this is an issue which requires wider >> > consultation. >> > > This is #ReflectiveAccessToNonExportedTypes on the JSR 376 issues list. > The problem is reasonably well understood and there are several > proposals and approaches being discussed and considered.
Forgive me if I've missed something, but #ReflectiveAccessToNonExportedTypes does not deal with the need to make fields or methods accessible to the framework. That's what setAccessible is used for. It would certainly be nice for a framework to be able to say "make it accessible, but only to me." Andrew.
