On 02/03/2017 11:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 03/02/2017 16:42, David M. Lloyd wrote:
:
Sure, but the set of JARs you can't rewrite is really pretty spare.
I've no doubt that many people would be uncomfortable taking
responsibility to modularize a component that they don't maintain or
have full knowledge of.
I don't think there is really a substantial increase in risk between
manually modularizing a library and relying on automatic modules. Any
discomfort is purely illusory, as the present automatic module process
is a pretty well-defined sequence of steps, and a manual or
tool-assisted modularization process would be equally well-defined, even
if not exactly equivalent. Anything beyond the facts of the processes
themselves would really be wandering into psychology, but I don't see a
significant disadvantage with this approach (on the contrary the added
flexibility seems like an advantage to me).
In the early exploration phase of Project Jigsaw
then we have some basic tooling to help with exactly that approach but
it has long been left behind. One reason is that potential for anarchy
with several people converting the same library to a module.
There's no technical solution for preventing this situation when a
single module environment is being assembled by multiple parties. They
simply must coordinate, or the result may be inconsistent or incorrect.
I don't see how automatic modules provide any sort of general remedy for
this.
You might
not like automatic modules but at least the module descriptors that are
derived are very predictable (including the name).
I'm not really arguing about what I like, it's purely about comparative
quality: in my experience a thing that works for some cases while
causing potentially subtle or confusing problems in others should
generally be considered unacceptable. In the vast majority of cases,
it's better to do nothing than to do something half-baked.
--
- DML
