Re: JDK9 Modules

On 12/07/2016 22:24, Malachi de Ælfweald wrote: I notice that with 9-ea+125-2016-07-06-073258.javare.5251.nc , this works: --add-modules=ALL-SYSTEM --add-exports=java.base/sun.nio.ch =ALL-UNNAMED With a slightly newer 9-ea+126 fr

Re: JDK9 Modules

I notice that with 9-ea+125-2016-07-06-073258.javare.5251.nc, this works: --add-modules=ALL-SYSTEM --add-exports=java.base/sun.nio.ch=ALL-UNNAMED With a slightly newer 9-ea+126 from webupd8, it causes: Unrecognized option: --add-modules=ALL-SYSTEM Do we need to ask that the WebUpd8 team build wit

hg: jigsaw/jake/langtools: update options for javac, javadoc

Changeset: f5581208bbd2 Author:jjg Date: 2016-07-12 13:51 -0700 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jigsaw/jake/langtools/rev/f5581208bbd2 update options for javac, javadoc ! src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/main/Option.java ! src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/com/sun/too

Re: It's not too late for access control

On 12/07/2016 18:31, Sanne Grinovero wrote: : As a maintainer and contributor to several popular Java open source libraries my experience is that in practice very few existing libraries will "just work" in Java 9 out of the box: people will have to update their code. This is based on my experien

Re: It's not too late for access control

On Jul 12, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Andrew Dinn wrote: > > I'm not sure how AOT compiled code is supposed to protect itself against > the potential consequences of my agent tweaking accessibility in this > way. Would it be not require -- at the least -- wholesale deoptimization > of compiled methods in

Re: It's not too late for access control

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 5:00 PM, John Rose wrote: > On Jul 12, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: >> >> All things being equal with Jigsaw features today, I'd rather have "public" >> retain it's global visibility and extend "package private" to the module. > > Again, $0.02, with apologies in

Re: It's not too late for access control

On 7/11/16 7:21 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote: The crux of this access control discussion is that, up until JDK 9, "public" meant "public". End of story. If you did not want something to be visible, you made it not public. Very simple and very clear. The word "public" literally means "accessibl

A different feedback on proposal for #ReflectiveAccessToNonExportedTypes

Hi, I'll try to question the proposal for #ReflectiveAccessToNonExportedTypes from a different angle. The proposal extends the language of module declaration with "exports dynamic" variant of export. Like classical plain "exports", the dynamic variant comes in unqualified and qualified flavo

Re: It's not too late for access control

On 12/07/16 17:07, John Rose wrote: > On Jul 12, 2016, at 9:00 AM, John Rose wrote: >> >> lurk mode > > P.S. I forgot one more point: As JVM/JIT guy I find the prospect of sealing > packages very appealing. Maybe it's a false promise, but it would be a > home run if we could reliably seal sub-a

Re: It's not too late for access control

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > - Mail original - >> De: "David M. Lloyd" >> À: "jigsaw-dev" >> Envoyé: Lundi 11 Juillet 2016 16:21:46 >> Objet: It's not too late for access control >> >> The crux of this access control discussion is that, up until JDK 9, >> "public

Re: It's not too late for access control

On 07/12/2016 11:07 AM, John Rose wrote: On Jul 12, 2016, at 9:00 AM, John Rose wrote: lurk mode P.S. I forgot one more point: As JVM/JIT guy I find the prospect of sealing packages very appealing. Maybe it's a false promise, but it would be a home run if we could reliably seal sub-assembl

Re: It's not too late for access control

Not commenting on the entire piece here, just one bit... On 07/12/2016 11:00 AM, John Rose wrote: On Jul 12, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Paul Benedict mailto:pbened...@apache.org>> wrote: This makes great sense to me. Why? Because when I develop a library, I really don't see any great benefit in hiding a

Re: It's not too late for access control

On Jul 12, 2016, at 9:00 AM, John Rose wrote: > > lurk mode P.S. I forgot one more point: As JVM/JIT guy I find the prospect of sealing packages very appealing. Maybe it's a false promise, but it would be a home run if we could reliably seal sub-assemblies for tree-shaking AOT compilation. Do

Re: It's not too late for access control

On Jul 12, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > All things being equal with Jigsaw features today, I'd rather have "public" > retain it's global visibility and extend "package private" to the module. Again, $0.02, with apologies in advance for opining on a subject I'm not an expert in. Fr

Re: It's not too late for access control

On 07/12/2016 10:43 AM, John Rose wrote: On Jul 12, 2016, at 2:00 AM, Remi Forax mailto:fo...@univ-mlv.fr>> wrote: First, there is already in the Java ecosystem a notion of non-exported package, packages startings with com.sun or packages containing internal, it was just a convention and not so

Re: It's not too late for access control

On Jul 12, 2016, at 2:00 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > > First, there is already in the Java ecosystem a notion of non-exported > package, packages startings with com.sun or packages containing internal, it > was just a convention and not something enforced by the VM. What the JPMS > spec does is ju

Re: It's not too late for access control

I agree with David in what his email says. I find everything he has said in his email to be reasonable. It's not useful for me to repeat what he has stated. However, I will note that I, too, in my Jigsaw testing have found myself having difficulty retraining my mind that "public" does not mean publ

Re: It's not too late for access control

On 07/12/2016 04:00 AM, Remi Forax wrote: - Mail original - De: "David M. Lloyd" À: "jigsaw-dev" Envoyé: Lundi 11 Juillet 2016 16:21:46 Objet: It's not too late for access control The crux of this access control discussion is that, up until JDK 9, "public" meant "public". End of stor

Re: It's not too late for access control

On 07/12/2016 04:53 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 11/07/2016 15:21, David M. Lloyd wrote: The crux of this access control discussion is that, up until JDK 9, "public" meant "public". End of story. If you did not want something to be visible, you made it not public. Very simple and very clear. T

Re: RFR: JDK-8161067 - jlink: Enable plugins to use the module pool for class lookup

> On 11 Jul 2016, at 18:58, Jim Laskey (Oracle) wrote: > >> How about the following helper method on ModulePool: >> >> Optional findModule(ModuleEntry me); >> >> then the intent in code might be a littler clearer on the context. > > After thinking about this at bit: If we did that and then la

Re: Ever a Windows ZIP to install?

On 11.07.2016 18:09, Paul Benedict wrote: Hi Dailbor, For Windows, I know the JDK only comes as a Windows Installer, but is their a reason that the JDK cannot be downloaded as a ZIP file? Hi Paul, Assuming that you're asking about the Oracle JDK, typically the reason is that it's not curre

Re: Feedback on proposal for #ReflectiveAccessToNonExportedTypes

On 12/07/2016 10:28, Andrew Dinn wrote: : I think I need to ask you to clarify this as it doesn't seem to recognise the point I was making. Of course, that may well indicate that I have failed to understand the precise behaviour of exports dynamic. Let us assume Module M exports dynamic P, wher

Re: Please do not cross-post to jpms-spec-comme...@openjdk.java.net

Thank you! On 11.07.2016 16:45, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: The jpms-spec-comments list is meant to be the JSR 376 EG's "suggestion box" rather than a discussion forum. Please do not cross post to that list. I've enabled moderation on that list and, going forward, I'll reject any cross-pos

Re: It's not too late for access control

On 11/07/2016 15:21, David M. Lloyd wrote: The crux of this access control discussion is that, up until JDK 9, "public" meant "public". End of story. If you did not want something to be visible, you made it not public. Very simple and very clear. The word "public" literally means "accessib

Re: Feedback on proposal for #ReflectiveAccessToNonExportedTypes

On 11/07/16 12:02, Alan Bateman wrote: >> That option may well be the status quo as of JDK8 but with JDK9 it is >> the status quo in a changed world. Firstly, this so-called status quo >> significantly undermines the point and utility of Jigsaw since >> effectively it negates it's presence at runti

Re: It's not too late for access control

- Mail original - > De: "David M. Lloyd" > À: "jigsaw-dev" > Envoyé: Lundi 11 Juillet 2016 16:21:46 > Objet: It's not too late for access control > > The crux of this access control discussion is that, up until JDK 9, > "public" meant "public". End of story. If you did not want somethi

Re: Ever a Windows ZIP to install?

Thank you Alan. On 12/07/2016 09:24, Rahman USTA wrote: If I remember right, forcing Windows installer is about an ads on the > installer. I always hate to install JDK with installer on Windows. > You might be thinking the consumer JRE download at java.com rather than the JDK or JDK 9 EA downloads

Re: Ever a Windows ZIP to install?

On 12/07/2016 09:24, Rahman USTA wrote: If I remember right, forcing Windows installer is about an ads on the installer. I always hate to install JDK with installer on Windows. You might be thinking the consumer JRE download at java.com rather than the JDK or JDK 9 EA downloads. In any case, th

Re: Ever a Windows ZIP to install?

If I remember right, forcing Windows installer is about an ads on the installer. I always hate to install JDK with installer on Windows. If anyone there want to be "developer friendly", please, release JDK releases as simple zip archive. Thanks. 2016-07-12 11:17 GMT+03:00 Alan Bateman : > On 11

Re: Ever a Windows ZIP to install?

On 11/07/2016 18:30, Uwe Schindler wrote: : As far as I know, there is no reason to *require* an Windows installer, so I'd suggest to maybe provide both options. People who want the windows installer and also automatically install a public JRE can do so with the installer, all others just un