Hi Alex,
Just to double check, the right javac behavior in this case should be to
issue similar errors in both cases like:
some position here: error: ServiceImpl is not public in
com.example.internal; cannot be accessed from outside package
some other position here: error: Outer.ServiceImpl is not public in
com.example.internal; cannot be accessed from outside package
without mentioning in any case anything about visibility right?
Thanks,
Vicente
On 02/07/2017 02:21 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
On 2/7/2017 1:11 AM, Gunnar Morling wrote:
---
package com.example;
public interface SomeService {
public void foo();
}
---
package com.example.internal;
class Outer {
public static class ServiceImpl implements
com.example.SomeService {
public ServiceImpl() {}
public void foo() {}
}
}
---
package com.example.internal;
class ServiceImpl implements com.example.SomeService {
public ServiceImpl() {}
public void foo() {}
}
---
module com.example {
exports com.example;
provides com.example.SomeService with
com.example.internal.ServiceImpl;
provides com.example.SomeService with
com.example.internal.Outer.ServiceImpl;
}
---
Essentially, I'm wondering:
* Why Outer.ServiceImpl triggers the error about package visibility
while ServiceImpl doesn't (I had a look at the EDR JLS, but I couldn't
find an explanation for that, happy about any specific pointers).
* Why Outer.ServiceImpl triggers "does not have a default constructor"
(ServiceImpl does not). Maybe a hint would be nice that is caused by
Outer not having public access.
Thanks for showing the code. Since everything in the same module,
package visibility is not relevant and javac shouldn't mention it.
I suspect that javac is getting tripped up by the fact that
Outer.ServiceImpl is declared 'public' (as the JLS and ServiceLoader
both demand) but it isn't widely accessible, even within the
com.example module, due to Outer's default (package) access. I believe
the JLS and ServiceLoader rules are correct, so it's a javac bug.
Alex
