Hi,
I’ve reviewed Langtools code.
There are various comment “//TODO”, “//FIXME”, “//XXX”. I think they should be
revised. May be issues should be filed to track them.
Unused import at 37 import java.io.IOException; in
langtools/test/tools/javac/modules/ModuleInfoTest.java
ASCII graphics issue at 64 line in test/tools/javac/modules/GraphsTest.java
Unused builder method in langtools/test/tools/lib/toolbox/ModuleBuilder.java
159 public ModuleBuilder exportsDynamicPrivate(String pkg) {
141 public ModuleBuilder exportsDynamic(String pkg) {
179 public ModuleBuilder exportsDynamicTo(String pkg, String module) {
199 public ModuleBuilder exportsDynamicPrivateTo(String pkg, String module)
{
Javadoc is used instead of comment
langtools/test/tools/javac/modules/AnnotationsOnModules.java
/**
25 * @test
—Andrey
> On 24 Nov 2016, at 18:25, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Folks on jigsaw-dev will know that we are on a mission to bring the changes
> accumulated in the jake forest to jdk9/dev. We can think of this as a refresh
> of the module system in JDK 9, the last big refresh was in May with many
> small updates since then.
>
> The focus this time is to bring the changes that are tied to JSR issues into
> jdk9/dev, specifically the issues that are tracked on the JSR issues list [1]
> as:
>
> #CompileTimeDependences
> #AddExportsInManifest
> #ClassFileModuleName
> #ClassFileAccPublic
> #ServiceLoaderEnhancements
> #ResourceEncapsulation/#ClassFilesAsResources
> #ReflectiveAccessToNonExportedTypes
> #AwkwardStrongEncapsulation
> #ReadabilityAddedByLayerCreator
> #IndirectQualifiedReflectiveAccess (partial)
> #VersionsInModuleNames
> #NonHierarchicalLayers
> #ModuleAnnotations/#ModuleDeprecation
> #ReflectiveAccessByInstrumentationAgents
>
> Some of these issues are not "Resolved" yet, meaning there is still ongoing
> discussion on the EG mailing list. That is okay, there is nothing final here.
> If there are changes to these proposals then the implementation changes will
> follow. Also, as I said in a mail to jigsaw-dev yesterday [2], is that we
> will keep the jake forest open for ongoing prototyping and iteration, also
> ongoing implementation improvements where iteration or bake time is important.
>
> For the code review then the focus is therefore on sanity checking the
> changes that we would like to bring into jdk9/dev. We will not use this
> review thread to debate alternative designs or other big implementation
> changes that are more appropriate to bake in jake.
>
> To get going, I've put the webrevs with a snapshot of the changes in jake
> here:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/8169069/0/
>
> The changes are currently sync'ed against jdk-9+146 and will be rebased (and
> re-tested) against jdk9/dev prior to integration. There are a number of small
> changes that need to be added to this in the coming days, I will refresh the
> webrev every few days to take account of these updates.
>
>
> A few important points to mention, even if you aren't reviewing the changes:
>
> 1. This refresh requires a new version of jtreg to run the tests. The changes
> for this new version are in the code-tools/jtreg repository and the plan is
> to tag a new build (jtreg4.2-b04) next week. Once the tag has been added then
> we'll update the requiredVersion property in each TEST.ROOT to force everyone
> to update.
>
> 2. For developers trying out modules with the main line JDK 9 builds then be
> aware that `requires public` changes to `requires transitive` and the
> `provides` clause changes to require all providers for a specific service
> type to be in the same clause. Also be aware that the binary form of the
> module declaration (module-info.class) changes so you will need to recompile
> any modules.
>
> 3. Those running existing code on JDK 9 and ignoring modules will need to be
> aware of a disruptive change in this refresh. The disruptive change is
> #AwkwardStrongEncapsulation where setAccessible(true) is changed so that it
> can't be used to break into non-public fields/methods of JDK classes. This
> change is going to expose a lot of hacks in existing code. We plan to send
> mail to jdk9-dev in advance of this integration to create awareness of this
> change. As per the original introduction of strong encapsulation then command
> line options (and now the manifest of application JAR files) can be used to
> keep existing code working. The new option is `--add-opens` to open a package
> in a module for deep reflection by other modules. As an example, if you find
> yourself with code that hacks into the private `comparator` field in
> java.util.TreeMap then running with `--add-opens
> java.base/java.util=ALL-UNNAMED` will keep that code working.
>
>
> A few miscellaneous notes for those that are reviewing:
>
> 1. We have some temporary/transition code in the top-level repo to deal with
> the importing of the JavaFX modules. This will be removed once the changes
> are in JDK 9 for the OpenJFX project to use.
>
> 2. In the jdk repo then it's important to understand that the module system
> is initialized at startup and there are many places where we need to keep
> startup performance in mind. This sometimes means less elegant code than
> might be used if startup wasn't such a big concern.
>
> 3. The changes in the jaxws repo make use of new APIs that means the code
> doesn't compile with JDK 7 or JDK 8. Our intention is to work with the JAXB
> and JAX-WS maintainers to address the issues in the upstream project and then
> bring those changes into jdk9/dev to replace the patches that we are forced
> to push for the short term.
>
> 4. You will see several tests where the value of the @modules tag has `:open`
> or `:+open`. This is new jtreg speak. The former means the test is run with
> --add-opens to open the package, the latter means the test is exported at
> compile-time and exported + open at run-time (the latter usage will be rare,
> it's where tests have static references to JDK internal types and are also
> doing deep reflection with setAccessible).
>
>
> In terms of dates then we are aiming to integrate these changes into jdk9/dev
> in early December. I will send a follow-up mail next week on this as we work
> through the logistics.
>
> -Alan
>
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/
> [2]
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2016-November/010219.html
