On 4 May 2017 at 12:03, Dan Berindei <dan.berin...@gmail.com> wrote: > If it's just private packages, then we won't have to change the API ;)
Sorry if that was confusing: I meant to remind there are at least 2 problems to take in consideration. Right they are not strongly correlated other than being consequences of Jigsaw. > > Personally I'm more worried about how our externalizers for JDK > classes are going to work: it's going to be hard to say we support > Java 9 and at the same time ask users to add a bunch of --add-opens > [1] to their JVM arguments. I stopped updating the POM comment at some > point, but most other requirements for access to private JDK fields > seem to come from WildFly/Pax Exam. Using "add-opens" is not the only option, and I agree it's not desirable - especially for embedded users. Read the Hibernate blog for some alternatives, but hey yes the APIs will have to change ;) - http://in.relation.to/2017/04/11/accessing-private-state-of-java-9-modules/ Thanks, Sanne > > [1]: https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/parent/pom.xml#L1614 > > Cheers > Dan > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@infinispan.org> wrote: >> N.B. one problem many are not aware of is that - unlike with OSGi - >> the restriction in Jigsaw also applies to private packages, e.g. >> packages you're using within the jar but have no intention to "export" >> make public. >> >> So having this sorted out for OSGi doesn't mean that it will work fine >> with Jigsaw. >> >> I suspect we didn't test this, as far as I know we've only tested >> running and compiling withing JDK9 but Infinispan itself is not >> defining module descriptors; i.e. it's not modularized. >> >> It's very likely that when we'll want to "modularize it" we'll have to >> change APIs. >> >> Thanks, >> Sanne >> >> >> On 4 May 2017 at 07:26, Galder Zamarreño <gal...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> As you might already know, there's been big debates about upcoming Java 9 >>> module system. >>> >>> Recently Stephen Colebourne, creator Joda time, posted his thoughts [1]. >>> >>> Stephen mentions some potential problems with all jars since no two modules >>> should have same package. We know from past experience that using these >>> jars as dependencies in Maven create all sorts of problems, but with the >>> new JPMS they might not even work? >>> >>> Have we tried all jars in Java 9? I'm wondering whether Stephen's problems >>> with all jars are truly founded since Java offers no publishing itself. I >>> mean, for that Stephen mentions to appear, you'd have to at runtime have an >>> all jar and then individual jars, in which case it would fail. But as long >>> as Maven does not enforce this in their repos, I think it's fine. If Maven >>> starts enforcing this in the jars that are stored in Maven repos then yeah, >>> we have a big problem. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> [1] http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-se-9-jpms-module-naming.html >>> -- >>> Galder Zamarreño >>> Infinispan, Red Hat >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
