inline

Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Kevin,

On 05/02/2017 02:21 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
This review is being cross-posted to both openjfx-dev and jigsaw-dev.

Please review the proposed fix for:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177566
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8177566/webrev.00/complete-webrev/

Details of the fix as well as notes to reviewers are in the bug report [1] (e.g., I've also generated separate webrevs for the fix itself, the doc changes, and the test changes).

-- Kevin

[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177566?focusedCommentId=14074243&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14074243


I think it is very unusual to handle unqualified exports as something special, different from qualified exports. I know what the reasoning is: if a package is exported unconditionally (to everyone) then it is part of public API and so the trampoline may access members of that package on behalf of anyone. But such reasoning is just a consequence of the lack of a finer-grained (per-module) access support in JavaFX. I know it is too much to ask for JDK 9, but could JavaFX in say JDK 10, given current API, somehow determine on whose behalf it is making the trampoline access? If it could, then the trampoline could allow qualified exports to be effective too.

The primary remedy is for the application to use a qualified "opens" to the appropriate javafx module. For example, to allow the JavaBeanXXXProperty classes the ability to access a class in your module, your module needs to "opens my.package to javafx.base". The only difference between what you propose and what was implemented is qualified exports versus qualified opens, which really shouldn't be too much of an issue for applications (such applications already need to use qualified opens to allow access to their FXML controller class).

The only reason we mention unconditional exports as an alternative is for the benefit of application that happen to already have their package exported unconditionally.

-- Kevin


Regards, Peter

Reply via email to