Le 2023-10-29 à 18 h 05, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
*type* is not a good solution for jpms, only dependency can help
Since we are talking about specifying the type of dependencies, I do not
understand well what would not work exactly?
One thing that we may need is a way for a dependency to said "unless the
user specifies otherwise in the <type> element, put me by default on the
module-path". Is it related to the objection?
But once again, how much project would we cover, in years EE and
Spring didnt embrace jpms and even if some minor integration can be
hoped it will not become mainsteam anytime soon (...snip...)
Not all applications depend on Spring or EE. For non-Spring
applications, as said previously in this thread, this is a
chicken-and-egg issue. There are companies that would love to use JPMS
(e.g. for reducing the "classpath hell" issue) but are blocked by
limitations of tools. Another argument is that JPMS improves security by
providing stronger encapsulation (only exported packages can be used,
and reflection is constrained). Security is a hot topic for governments
in those time, maybe we should not neglect features that can help us.
No-one is forced to use JPMS, but for those who want, it should not be
as hard as it is today. My expectation is that once JPMS become well
supported by tools like Maven, we will see a great increase in its usage.
Martin
