On 04/12/2015 12:59, David M. Lloyd wrote:
So you're saying that if I have C depending on A, then update A or I
split A and B in my distribution, I need to recompile C? I don't
think that's a realistic proposition. Do I then have to recompile
things that depend on C? Or things that depend on those things? How
would updates work in such a scenario? Do I need to put the
dependency versions of every dependency in my version string so that I
can tell the difference between C compiled with the original A versus
C compiled with the new A/B?
It should not be necessary (and indeed it is not necessary today) to
do this kind of cascading recompilation; I don't think that is
something reasonable to ask of users. If they have to recompile such
large swathes of their project any time anything has changed, the
point of modules has been at least partially defeated.
Java has a fairly clear ABI contract; a better approach would be for
users to know if they've changed compatibility when they compile A, or
when they split A into A and B, etc. If the ABI is the same or is
forwards-compatible (i.e. only adding members), then why would a user
want to recompile everything else? Is this not a red flag that the
encapsulation rules are unrealistic?
FWIW, I also read your original mail as the wild west as it came across
as arbitrary refactoring of other people's modules. So best to make
things as clear as possible as it's just too easy to get into confusing
discussions here.
As regards refactoring then the current design supports many cases of
merging and splitting, something for another thread I think.
-Alan.
