Le 2024-01-04 à 15 h 56, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
Well it was written that the artifact names were not JPMS compatible,
you can review https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs but it was
just one example.
Without link to the specific section, I cannot review if it is related
to our discussion. Compiling with JAR files on the class-path and
expecting Java to handle them as JPMS modules later just doesn't work,
or is tricky and unsafe at best. So Geronimo must be doing something
else, e.g. maybe they choose to not handle the problematic artifact as a
JPMS module (which is allowed by the proposal for Maven 4). Projects do
not need to be 100% modules or 100% class-path, it can be a mix of both.
But whatever they choose must be consistent at compilation,
documentation and execution.
Don't get me wrong but indeed you can fix all the world to make it
fully JPMS compatible, this is not what happent since java 9 so I
don't consider that path as something relevant today.
We already had this discussion. I (and at least one other person on this
mailing list) think that this is a chicken and egg problem. But anyway,
even if some peoples think that module-paths are not relevant today, it
is not a reason for blocking peoples who think that it is relevant.
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
