[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6945?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16295257#comment-16295257
]
Stephen Colebourne commented on DERBY-6945:
-------------------------------------------
Some points:
* Each jar file that can be a dependency must have a single module name
* Each package must be in a single module
* Thus, each package must be in a single jar file
* There is no requirement to have the module name equal the super-package name,
it is just more convenient in most cases
* Uber-jar files (jar-with-dependencies) should not have a module name
If you can't establish anything better, just naming the modules
`org.apache.derby.<jarfilename>` will work, providing that no package is in two
modules.
Taking a very brief look at `derby.jar ` and `derbyclient.jar `, they both
contain the same package. As such, they cannot both be on the module-path at
the same time. `derbynet.jar` also shares 3 packages. As such, Derby is not
currently viable to be used with the Java module system - it will need surgery
between the jar files to ensure that no package is in two jar files (where a
user might want both on the module-path).
> Re-package Derby as a collection of jigsaw modules
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6945
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6945
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 10.13.1.2
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Attachments: derby-6945-01-aa-remove_derbyPreBuild_dep.diff,
> derby-6945-02-ab-newDerbySharedJar.diff, jdeps.out.tar
>
>
> Once we commit to building with Java 9 (see DERBY-6856), we should consider
> re-packaging Derby as a set of jigsaw modules. This would result in a
> different set of release artifacts. This might be a good opportunity to
> address the Tomcat artifactory issues raised by issue DERBY-6944.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
