On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM, <mark.reinh...@oracle.com> wrote: > If one of those automatic modules is modularized later on, and given a > different name, then how is having to fix that materially different from > having to fix code that was using a package that's no longer exported? > If anything it might actually be easier to cope with a module-name > change, since all you have to do is edit a `requires` directive; code > that refers to a package that's now encapsulated might require a > non-trivial rewrite. > > I think I need to reconsider my previous conclusion that explicit modules > that depend upon automatic modules should never be published for broad > use [2]. Sure, they have unstable names and unstable APIs but if, as you > say, people are generally used to fixing minor problems when they upgrade > then this instability may well be tolerable -- especially since it would > allow maintainers to modularize whenever they want to rather than only > after all of their dependencies have been modularized. >
One is an edge case, the other is the normal case. Just because _some_ people will have to fix their dependencies, doesn't mean we should choose a path that forces _all_ users to deal with names changing all over the place.
