Alan, thanks for responding. When I read the JDK ticket, I was drawn to the quote regarding "getting away from large command lines" (paraphrasing). If that's an important goal and a future best-practice, then I think wherever patch/override classes can be enumerated on the command line, .properties should be supported too.
Cheers, Paul On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 09/01/2016 22:12, Paul Benedict wrote: > >> What will the interaction be between a .properties and patching? It would >> make sense, I think, to allow a project to specify all the modules for >> compiling source, but then allow overrides for compiling/executing tests. >> If overrides aren't available, then overrides will have to be calculated >> manually to generate another .properties file. This isn't a complaint; >> it's >> just speaking the conclusion aloud for input. >> > I would assume javac -Xmodule and the -Xpatch support shouldn't be > impacted by this. The proposal just allows a properties file to be > specified as an alternative to a directory (java -mp > dir1:mymods.properties:dir2 ..) and so the patching/overriding should > continue to work. Or maybe you mean that -Xpatch should allow properties to > be specified in its value too? > > -Alan. >
