As a follow-up question. What if I need to import a library into my
namespace and therewith module? ("shaded dependencies") This is a quite
common practice to avoid version conflicts.Would for example the reflection semantics for these classes change? Or would the byte code level serve as a fallback? (But then the mentioned "modularity for pre-9 libraries" would not work.) Am 03.12.2015 7:04 nachm. schrieb "Peter Levart" <peter.lev...@gmail.com>: > > > On 12/02/2015 09:16 PM, Alex Buckley wrote: > >> On 12/2/2015 8:31 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: >> >>> All that information is locked in binary format but it >>> should be human readable. I should be able to go in myself and do this >>> with >>> a text editor. I shouldn't have to compile a file anymore than I have to >>> compile my MANIFEST.MF or web.xml or application.xml. This is all about >>> configuration; not executable code. >>> >> >> Annotations are human readable in source code but end up "locked in >> binary format". Entity mappings and REST endpoints (since we're speaking of >> EE constructs like application.xml) are configuration ... do you expect to >> be able to use a text editor to modify them? >> >> Is there any more to say on the issue of "source-flowing-to-binary versus >> structured-text" than is already rehearsed at >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/182393/xml-configuration-versus-annotation-based-configuration >> ? >> >> Alex >> > > Hi Alex, > > Loosely related to this debate, I would like to ask what's the story with > modular jars that can run on JDK8 classpath and as modules on JDK9. How is > one supposed to create such jar file as it must have: > > - classes compiled with JDK8 javac (or JDK9 javac with -source 8 -target 8 > or -release 8) > - module-info.class which can only be produced with JDK9 javac, but not > with -source 8 -target 8 or -release 8 > > Is one expected to invoke javac twice, 1st for sources (excluding > module-info.java), 2nd just for module-info.java ? Wouldn't it be nice for > jar tool to be able to fabricate the module-info.class from scratch using > just command-line options? It currently can edit module-info.class to add > main class. If it could also print module-info.class and create it, it > would be almost like having a text file an vi, wouldn't it? > > > Regards, Peter > >
