Hello,

The split package is a problem in spring.jcl not in Apache commons Logging. 
Also adding module info would unfortunately require a multi release JAR if it 
is supposed to be compatible with Java 8.

So I guess parallel release would be the solution (but it does not help with 
your problem). In your case you can just delete the Apache classes in the 
spring jar.

Gruß
Bernd

--
https://Bernd.eckenfels.net

________________________________
Von: Hannes H. <dub...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Freitag, November 30, 2018 4:01 PM
An: dev@commons.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Modular version/edition of Apache Commons

At the moment I am not even able to clone the git repository since I do not
have sufficient credentials .. .do I need to register somewhere?

Am Fr., 30. Nov. 2018 um 15:46 Uhr schrieb Gary Gregory <
garydgreg...@gmail.com>:

> Patches are always welcome :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 07:44 Hannes H. <dub...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > My precise problem is that some Spring Framework modules reading classes
> > from the package ' org.apache.commons.logging from both commons.logging'
> > and so does 'commons.dbcp2' (which seems to be a module of DBCP). That is
> > apparently a condition called "split package" which is not allowed in
> > modularized code bases.
> >
> > The exact error message would be: 'Error:java: module commons.dbcp2 reads
> > package org.apache.commons.logging from both commons.logging and
> > spring.jcl'.
> >
> > Hannes
> >
> >
> > Am Fr., 30. Nov. 2018 um 15:26 Uhr schrieb Gilles <
> > gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>:
> >
> > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:01:57 +0100, Hannes H. wrote:
> > > > So there is no common approach planned for Apache Commons?
> > >
> > > Recently released components probably have an
> > > Automatic-Module-Name
> > > defined for each artefact.
> > >
> > > Is there a precise question?
> > > Do you have a suggestion?
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Gilles
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Am Fr., 30. Nov. 2018 um 14:50 Uhr schrieb A. Soroka
> > > > <sorok...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > >> Since each Commons component is released separately, each can have
> > > >> its own
> > > >> plan.
> > > >>
> > > >> ajs6f
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 8:46 AM Hannes H. <dub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I am talking about Apache Commons in general and its approach to
> > > >> Java
> > > >> > modules which came with JDK 9 (project Jigsaw).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hannes
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Am Fr., 30. Nov. 2018 um 13:22 Uhr schrieb Gary Gregory <
> > > >> > garydgreg...@gmail.com>:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Apache Common is a single project but is made up of Components
> > > >> that are
> > > >> > > developed and released individually.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Can you be more specific? Which Components are you talking
> > > >> about?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Gary
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 01:52 Hannes H. <dub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Good day,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > while migrating a code base which depends on Apache Commons
> > > >> from
> > > >> Java 8
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > Java 11 the problem with 'split packages' crossed my efforts
> > > >> to do
> > > >> so.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I did some research but I could not find anything, so I try by
> > > >> asking
> > > >> > > here:
> > > >> > > > Is there a modularized version/edition of Apache Commons
> > > >> available,
> > > >> or
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > there a timeline until when this will be done?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > If not: Is there any suggestion on how to approach that
> > > >> problem when
> > > >> > > > migration to a newer, jigsaw-enabled JDK version?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Thanks for your time and help,
> > > >> > > > Hannes
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to