Re: Difference of module jdk.xml.dom and module jdk.zipfs

On 25/03/2021 14:59, Christian Stein wrote: Hi, Besides their names, contents and purposes. (-: So, what's the difference of module jdk.xml.dom and module jdk.zipfs in respect to their visibility(?) at compile and run-time? Suppose, there's a module test.base declared as: module test.base

Difference of module jdk.xml.dom and module jdk.zipfs

Hi, Besides their names, contents and purposes. (-: So, what's the difference of module jdk.xml.dom and module jdk.zipfs in respect to their visibility(?) at compile and run-time? Suppose, there's a module test.base declared as: module test.base { requires jdk.xml.dom; requires jdk.

Re: Add information of which automatic module doesn't the

On 25/03/2021 14:11, Christian Stein wrote: On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 10:10 AM Alan Bateman > wrote: [...] Thanks, it should include the file path to the JAR file in the message to make it easy to find the JAR file that can't be used as an au

Re: Add information of which automatic module doesn't the

I guess the issue was created: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8262944 Em qui., 25 de mar. de 2021 às 11:11, Christian Stein escreveu: > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 10:10 AM Alan Bateman > wrote: > >> [...] >> Thanks, it should include the file path to the JAR file in the message >> to

Re: Add information of which automatic module doesn't the

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 10:10 AM Alan Bateman wrote: > [...] > Thanks, it should include the file path to the JAR file in the message > to make it easy to find the JAR file that can't be used as an automatic > module. I'll create an issue to track that. > Did you create an issue, Alan? If not, I'

Re: New candidate JEP: 403: Strongly Encapsulate JDK Internals

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:26 PM Alan Bateman wrote: > [...] > > More generally, tests for modules, say white box tests that exercise > package private methods, can continue to be compiled and run "as if" > they are part of the module. The Maven/other plugins for testing will > use --patch-module

Re: New candidate JEP: 403: Strongly Encapsulate JDK Internals

On 25/03/2021 10:54, Andrew Haley wrote: : Looking at the JEP, I don't immediately see anything about long-term use of illegal accesses in test code. There are a good many cases where we need to test private and protected classes and fields, for example. Is there a proposal to allow this? I don'

Re: New candidate JEP: 403: Strongly Encapsulate JDK Internals

On 3/17/21 10:05 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/403 > > Summary: Strongly encapsulate all internal elements of the JDK, except > for critical internal APIs such as sun.misc.Unsafe. It will no longer > be possible to relax the strong encapsulation of inte