On 17 February 2017 at 00:15, Stephan Herrmann
<stephan.herrm...@berlin.de> wrote:
>> module mainlib from com.mycompany {
>> requires base; // implicit, favours group 'com.mycompany' if there is a
>> clash
>> requires willow; // uses 'com.mycompany' because there is a clash
>> requires willow from org.joda; // explicitly specified, but only
>> needed to resolve a clash
>> }
>
>
> From here, wouldn't it be trivial to change Mark's counter example:
>
> module com.bar:foo.data {
> exports com.bar.foo.data;
> requires org.hibernate:hibernate.core;
> requires org.hibernate:hibernate.jcache;
> requires org.hibernate:hibernate.validator;
> }
>
> into a positive example:
>
> import org.hibernate:*;
> module com.bar:foo.data {
> exports com.bar.foo.data;
> requires hibernate.core;
> requires hibernate.jcache;
> requires hibernate.validator;
> }
There is a subtle difference through. With the two layouts above, the
groupId is always specified. With what I suggested, the groupId is
late binding in the common case, giving a degree of flexibility to
find the matching module.
module com.bar:foo.data {
exports com.bar.foo.data;
requires hibernate.core;
requires hibernate.jcache;
requires hibernate.validator;
}
ie. this looks for hibernate.core on the module path and might find it
from group org.hibernate or from another group. Finding it twice =
error. This flexibility may be good or bad depending on how you view
the world.
BTW, one advantage of groups over reverse DNS is that it forces a
consistent naming scheme on everyone, whereas the current proposal
could well result in a mismash of styles.
Stephen
