----- Mail original ----- > De: "Jonathan Gibbons" <jonathan.gibb...@oracle.com> > À: jigsaw-dev@openjdk.java.net > Envoyé: Mercredi 23 Mars 2016 20:58:20 > Objet: Re: jdeps -check: add section on exports > > At a minimum, it would be a candidate for a -Xlint check. > > -- Jon
I think it should be an error that explains that the package containing a not visible class in the signature of a publicly visible method should be either exported or publicly exported in the module info, it will greatly help people to create correct module info. Rémi > > On 03/23/2016 11:31 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > > In my opinion, it should be a warning (or even an error) in javac, > > you should not create a bad module in the first place. > > > > Rémi > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > >> De: "Anthony Vanelverdinghe" <anthony.vanelverdin...@gmail.com> > >> À: jigsaw-dev@openjdk.java.net > >> Envoyé: Mercredi 23 Mars 2016 19:26:24 > >> Objet: jdeps -check: add section on exports > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> It would be great if jdeps -check would also have a section on exports: > >> this section would list non-exported packages which contain types that > >> are exposed (e.g. through method signatures) by exported packages. > >> Ideally, those appearances should be listed under each package, i.e.: > >> > >> com.foo.impl > >> type X is exposed by member Y of exported type Z > >> > >> Using this, one could easily see whether the package should indeed be > >> exported, or whether a method was mistakenly made public, or ... > >> > >> JDK-8147050 already mentions the similar case of checking whether or not > >> a "requires" ought to be public. > >> > >> What do you think? Should I file an issue for this? > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Anthony > >> > >
