Hi!
> I think one option we should consider is to perhaps disable automatic
> modules for 9 and revisit the idea for 10, as it's late in the day and
> still clearly not settled.
I disagree. The idea that modules should not depend "on the chaos of the
class path" seems to be a very good one. This makes the compile and run
time behavior of JARs that do have a descriptor much more predictable
thatn otherwise. To that end, I like how automatic modules act as a
buffer zone between the modularized application and its unmodularized
dependencies.
Hence my assumption to keep automatic modules working.
so long ... Nicolai
On 03.02.2017 15:29, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> I think one option we should consider is to perhaps disable automatic
> modules for 9 and revisit the idea for 10, as it's late in the day and
> still clearly not settled.
>
> On 02/03/2017 05:44 AM, Robert Scholte wrote:
>> Hi Nicolai,
>>
>> let's consider that my project depends on the following dependencies:
>> com.foo.bar:library:1.0 and com.acme:library:2.3.1, both unnamed.
>>
>> I somehow want to have them both as requirements:
>> module M.N {
>> requires static library; // com.foo.bar:library
>> requires library; // com.acme:library
>> }
>>
>> How can I define that the 'requires static library' should be mapped to
>> com.foo.bar:library:1.0 on the modulepath, while 'requires library'
>> should be mapped to com.acme:library:2.3.1
>>
>> One ugly solution would be:
>> requires static library containing com.foo.bar.baz.SomeClass;
>> requires library containing acme.AnotherClass;
>>
>> We should really wonder if ease-of-transition is worth the minefield
>> we're creating with the introduction of automodules. IMHO all options
>> we're trying to add to keep automodules will only over-complicate
>> things, not even being sure if all edges are covered.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Robert
>>
>> On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 12:28:13 +0100, Nicolai Parlog <n...@codefx.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> after thinking about this a little longer, I came to the conclusion that
>>> compile-time/launch-time aliasing might be the only way out of this (at
>>> least the only I could come up with) that keeps automatic modules alive
>>> and does not introduce a conceptual dependency on Maven.
>>>
>>> The idea:
>>>
>>> A command line option, let's say `--alias-modules A=X`, maps module name
>>> A to module name X. Every dependency on either A or X will be resolved
>>> to X, implying that there must a module X in the universe of observable
>>> modules. There can be several aliases for the same module
>>> (`--alias-modules A=X,B=X`; X needs to be observable) and they can be
>>> chained (`--alias-modules A=X,X=Y`; Y needs to be observable)
>>>
>>> Aliasing would of course have to be applied to qualified exports, opens,
>>> and similar mechanisms as well.
>>>
>>> It might be worth adding the rule that no observable module must have an
>>> aliased name. So for `--alias-modules A=X` there must be no observable
>>> module A. This prevents ambiguity and would effectively prevent aliasing
>>> platform modules. That might be a good thing because it looks like
>>> aliasing and upgrading modules has quite some overlap (or is even
>>> identical?)
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I could not come up with a way to limit aliasing to
>>> automatic module names (in case that were desirable) without somehow
>>> marking dependencies on automatic modules, likely in the module
>>> declaration. If changing module declaration syntax is still on the
>>> table, it could be changed so that dependencies on automatic modules
>>> must be phrased as something like `requires automatic`.
>>>
>>> The obvious semantics would be that only such requires clauses can be
>>> fulfilled with automatic modules and that only such dependencies could
>>> be aliased (this might make it prudent to phrase the aliasing option
>>> accordingly, e.g. `--alias-automatic-modules`).
>>>
>>> This could also be used to help developers in keeping their module
>>> declarations clean: The compiler could to emit a warning if a `requires
>>> automatic` clause is fulfilled by a regular module.
>>>
>>> I would love to hear some thoughts on this idea, even if it considered
>>> to be stupid, impractical,etc. :)
>>>
>>> so long ... Nicolai
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27.01.2017 15:11, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>>> Back in October, I raised the issue of modules names generally and for
>>>> automatic modules specifically [1]. The short thread came to no
>>>> conclusion, but recent threads have again raised similar problems. The
>>>> problem is that automatic modules have magical name creation from a
>>>> filename, which is brittle and unlike anything else in Java.
>>>>
>>>> I also recently looked at the Joda-Convert and Joda-Beans libraries,
>>>> to see if I could add module-info in preparation for Java 9. I quickly
>>>> backed away, again because of the same issue. Put simply, I am
>>>> unwilling to write a module-info file that refers to a dependency that
>>>> is not yet a module. And I have to advise all open source projects to
>>>> do the same. Given this, there can be no simple migration to the JPMS
>>>> for open source projects. Each open source project must wait for all
>>>> its dependencies to migrate to JPMS (by adding a module-info and
>>>> publishing to Maven Central).
>>>>
>>>> The issue is clear. If I write this:
>>>>
>>>> module org.joda.convert {
>>>> requires guava;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> where guava is an automatic module, I am locking in the name of the
>>>> guava dependency, something that I do not control. The name "guava" is
>>>> just a guess. The guava authors might choose "com.google.guava" or
>>>> something else entirely.
>>>>
>>>> In a closed system of modules, ie. a private application, automatic
>>>> modules are fine, because the requires clause can be changed if it
>>>> turns out the guess was wrong. But once published as an open source
>>>> project to Maven Central or elsewhere, the guess cannot be fixed if it
>>>> is wrong (without releasing a new version of the library, which is not
>>>> an acceptable solution).
>>>>
>>>> I also strongly believe that module names cannot be flat and
>>>> unstructured, such as "joda-convert" or "guava". They must have
>>>> structure, such as the domain name or a Maven-style group name
>>>> "org.joda.convert" or "org.joda:joda-convert". The potential for
>>>> clashes has been shown by the Maven team [2].
>>>>
>>>> Some brainstormed possible changes:
>>>>
>>>> - Remove the automatic module concept altogether
>>>>
>>>> - Define a clear mapping from Maven Central co-ordinates to module
>>>> name that includes the group, artifact and classifier
>>>>
>>>> - Provide a text file to JPMS that allows incorrect module names to be
>>>> mapped to the correct name
>>>>
>>>> - Publicly advise against using automatic modules for open source
>>>> projects
>>>>
>>>> - Change rules of Maven Central to prevent modular jars being added
>>>> that depend on an automatic module
>>>>
>>>> - Allow requires clauses to have aliases - requires org.guava.guava
>>>> OR guava.
>>>>
>>>> - Allow modules to have aliases - module org.guava.guava AKA guava
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that applications can depend on libraries that haven't been
>>>> released in years, this has the potential to be a critical problem for
>>>> the ecosystem. My preference remains to define a clear mapping from
>>>> the widely adopted Maven Central naming strategy to JPMS modules.
>>>> Ideally, this would be a formal group concept in the JPMS, something
>>>> that I believe is sorely lacking.
>>>>
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2016-October/009631.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [2]
>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-observers/2017-January/000707.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
--
PGP Key:
http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0xCA3BAD2E9CCCD509
Web:
http://codefx.org
a blog about software development
https://www.sitepoint.com/java
high-quality Java/JVM content
http://do-foss.de
Free and Open Source Software for the City of Dortmund
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/nipafx
