I know enough of the Eclipse setup to say that it works and that's it.

I've had many requests to support JPMS in Commons and none that I recall
since I've been releasing jars using Moditect, so I can only assume it
works well enough. My impression is that people only care to get rid of
warnings or errors to run an app.

IOW, JPMS is something to work around and not with.

If I had more time, I'd fork a JVM and add a --jpms-off flag...

Gary

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024, 8:59 AM Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Gary,
>
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 13:18, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I use Eclipse to create PRs for projects like Jetty 12 which has 200+
> Maven
> > modules. How is this not a problem there?
>
> I don't see any `module-info.java` file in Jetty tests. Are they even
> running tests on the module path?
>
> > In Commons, we use the Moditect plugin to generate the JPMS junk, no
> > problems. No need for the insanity of special test projects.
>
> With Moditect you have the same problem: you test on the classpath and
> everything is fine, but a JPMS user might encounter problems.
> The issue that convinced me we need a separate test project is #2814.
> Our tests never caught this problem.
>
> Remark that I am not talking about moving all tests to a separate project:
>
> * it is insane to run Unit tests on the modulepath, since we must
> break its encapsulation. In our case it is even impossible: the unit
> tests in `log4j-api-test/src/test` depend on `log4j-api` +
> `log4j-api-test/src/main` test fixtures.
> If we patch the `org.apache.logging.log4j` module with the unit tests
> (this is the usual way to do unit tests in JPMS), there will be a
> recursive dependency between the module from `log4j-api` and the
> module of the test fixtures `log4j-api-test`.
> * only simple integration tests should go to a separate repo. These
> tests will verify, e.g., that we can run `log4j-core` without any of
> its optional dependencies.
>
> Piotr
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/2814
>

Reply via email to