On Fri, 05 May 2017 12:36:38 +0200, Stephen Colebourne
<scolebou...@joda.org> wrote:
I think this design addresses some of Roberts's concern too. With this
plan, Maven Central would contain modules depending on automatic
modules, but the dependency names would be sufficiently stable for
this not to be the major issue it has been previously.
While I don't think automatic modules are the best option, were the
above chosen, I think it would be a solution the community could
successfully and easily adopt.
My most favorite solution is still the support for loose/soft modules. The
pros: it'll only introduce one new keyword; the cons: the code might not
compile/run *upfront* due to missing jars, however I doubt if this is
really an issue assuming most Java projects use tooling to solve this.
Adding mapper information to the module-descriptor is an option, but
that'll add the automodule name in some way to the descriptor, and I'd
like to avoid that because it should not be used as inspiration to pick
your module name.
