As i've read the mail of Sander,
the module which is required statically is present in the module path but not
resolved by default, you have to use --add-modules. But maybe i'm wrong ?
Rémi
----- Mail original -----
> De: "Alan Bateman" <alan.bate...@oracle.com>
> À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>, "Sander Mak" <sander....@luminis.eu>
> Cc: "jigsaw-dev" <jigsaw-dev@openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 13 Janvier 2017 12:33:53
> Objet: Re: #CompileTimeDependencies and module resolution
> On 13/01/2017 11:08, Remi Forax wrote:
>
>> Hi Sander,
>> you're right, it's a bug, --add-modules should not be necessary.
>>
>> Rémi
> I don't think there is a bug here. Instead the example that Sander has
> chosen doesn't resolve a module that `requires B`. The "Notes" section
> in #CompileTimeDependences proposal has the rational for this. If the
> example is extended to:
>
> module A { requires static B; requires C; }
> module B { ... }
> module C { requires B; }
>
> then the resulting module graph will have contain at least A, B and C,
> and A will read at least B and C.
>
> -Alan
