[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6945?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16304078#comment-16304078
]
Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-6945:
--------------------------------------
Thanks for thinking through these issues, Bryan.
BP> Rick, in these reflection/delegation approaches you're considering, is the
indirection and reflection limited to "startup" activities like constructors
and initialization?
I think that reflection should only be necessary at construction/initialization
time. After that, the original (now wrapper) classes would just forward their
calls to already instantiated objects.
BP> You're right, this is a pretty big mess. I think we need to find some way
to escalate the visibility of this, and think about it some more, because
frankly I don't really like any of your three proposals (five proposals if you
count the two variants on #2).
Any suggestions about how to attract more eyes to this issue?
Thanks,
-Rick
> 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,
> derby-6945-02-ac-newDerbySharedJar.diff, derby-6945-03-aa-partitionTest.diff,
> derby-6945-04-aa-moveRunClass.diff,
> derby-6945-05-aa-removeRedundant_Attribute_SQLState.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)
