On May 4, 2017 11:21:38 PM GMT+02:00, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote: >On 4 May 2017 at 18:38, <mark.reinh...@oracle.com> wrote:
... >> - To increase awareness of when automatic modules are used, and of >the >> consequences of their use, suggest that Java language compilers >issue >> two new types of warnings, and implement these warnings in the >RI: > >Perhaps these should be reconsidered? If the module depends on an >automatic module with a module name in the manifest, it can be >considered reasonably stable. Whereas anything depending on a filename >derived module name is unstable. That isn't being captured by the >warnings. an automatic module is still not stable because it exports all packages by default while a real module may only export some of them. > >Stephen Rémi > > >On 4 May 2017 at 18:39, <mark.reinh...@oracle.com> wrote: >> Thanks to everyone, and especially Stephen Colebourne, Brian Fox, and >> Robert Scholte, for the extensive feedback. >> >> >http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2017-May/000687.html >> >> TL;DR: Keep automatic modules, bring back the module-name JAR-file >> manifest attribute, and strongly recommend reverse-DNS module names. >> >> Comments? >> >> - Mark -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
