> There is another question on whether the > module in the generated image retains the `requires static` or not.
What would be the rational for removing it? On first thought I'd say keep the descriptor as it is. One could envision a tool for updating existing images, e.g. adding an optional dependency originally omitted when creating the image. 2017-02-17 10:46 GMT+01:00 Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com>: > On 17/02/2017 08:45, Gunnar Morling wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> How can I exclude optional dependencies when creating a runtime image >> using jlink? >> >> In more detail, I have a module A which declares an optional >> dependency to another module B via "requires static". I'd like to >> create a runtime image which only contains A. >> >> When running jlink with "--add-modules A", I'm getting "Error: B not >> found". jlink finishes when I run it with "--add-modules A,B" but then >> B is part of the image, too, as per the images release file. >> > Thanks for bringing this up, it's something that was kicked around when > `requires static` was added and I think dropped off the radar. > > To re-cap, one question at the time was how well jlink plugins will cope > with "dangling references". It's not an issue for the plugins that are > currently enabled by default. There is another question on whether the > module in the generated image retains the `requires static` or not. > > -Alan
