+1 for "requires optional" On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote:
> On 11 September 2016 at 22:24, <mark.reinh...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Proposals for the following issues have been available for evaluation > > and experimentation for quite a while now. Most responses have been > > positive and there have been no strong objections, so I've updated > > the issue list [1] to mark them as closed. > > > > #BootstrapClassLoaderSearchInJVMTI > > #ClassFileAccPublic > > #CompileTimeDependences (`requires static`) > > #CustomizableAutomaticModuleNameMapping > > #ModuleAnnotations > > #ModuleDeprecation > > #ReflectiveAccessByInstrumentationAgents > > > > Not everyone was thrilled with the choice of `static` as the modifier > > on `requires` directives that indicates a compile-time dependence, but > > no obviously-better choice has emerged. > > Given that "exports dynamic" has gone, there is even less reason to > use "static" (as there is no "dynamic" equivalent). The simplest > alternative is "requires optional", which fits with the existing > terminology used by maven for many years and more clearly indicates > that users cannot rely on the dependency. > > Stephen > -- Best Regards, Ali Ebrahimi
