Hmm, shout if I didn't get your comments properly and my comment is obvious but I think 1 and 3 are fine - that's why I proposed them - because you can create the module-info.java with java 8. This is what does the plugin I mentionned, writing it directly with java 9 (long story short it has a module-info parser and writer).
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> 2017-12-31 16:58 GMT+01:00 Andriy Redko <[email protected]>: > Hi Romain, > > I think there are 2 parts regarding modules: 1) using CXF from modularized > applications and 2) release/redesign CXF in a modular fashion (I mean Java > 9 modules). > The 2nd part is where we are heading eventually but we won't be trully > modular till > all our dependencies are available as modules as well. The idea of adding > automatic module name is helping out with the 1st part. Regarding your > questions > though: > > 1. Adding module-info.java would mean, at least, to branch the artifacts > (java9+ / java8). > 2. Yes, I think it makes sense, this is the recommended way, but we should > better make a > proposal first (as part of the JIRA Dennis created). > 3. I think this is the only way (as module-info.java won't compile with > Java 8) > > Automatic modules is a good start (arguably, for sure), because from the > efforts > perspetive, it looks doable in a short time vs adding proper > module-info.java to > each module, which would take significantly more. Thoughts? > > Best Regards, > Andriy Redko > > RMB> Hi guys, > > RMB> Few random notes/questions: > > RMB> 1. Why not using https://github.com/moditect/ > moditect/blob/master/README.md > RMB> and assume the moduleinfo instead of working it around with automatic > RMB> module name? > RMB> 2. For the naming it should really be someting like $group.$module > IMO, > RMB> probably with underscores instead of iphens for the module and maybe > RMB> removing cxf from the module dince it is in the package > RMB> 3. Is it possible to double relezse each module, one with the module > info > RMB> (if you do 1, or without the automatic module name if you dont) and a > RMB> qualifier jdk9 and keep current ones as today until the whole stack > is java > RMB> 9 (transitively). Easy to break consumers otherwise. > > RMB> Le 31 déc. 2017 13:38, "Dennis Kieselhorst" <[email protected]> a écrit > : > > > >> > Exactly, that's the idea, updating the manifest with > >> Automatic-Module-Name. We could also add a sample > >> > project (this would be Java 9 based) to illustrate the basic usage of > >> CXF from/within green field Java 9 > >> > modular project (although we may need to do more work here I suspect). > >> Thanks. > >> I've opened CXF-7600 for it. What should be the Automatic-Module-Name > >> for cxf-core? Just org.apache.cxf? Or org.apache.cxf.core which doesn't > >> match the package name structure? > > >> Regards > >> Dennis > > > > >
