Maven support and tool support in general for MR Jars is very poor at the moment - including the bundle plugin. I do have a working example <https://github.com/javaee/gmbal-pfl/blob/master/pfl-basic/pom.xml> you could look at that includes OSGi support. The key here is that I delete the java9 classes before computing the OSGi manifest, and only compile them before building the jar.
Russ > On May 17, 2017, at 11:28 PM, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote: > > I am afraid I have to echo these sentiments to some degree. In trying to get > Log4j to support Java 9 I first tried to use a multi-release jar. This failed > miserably when the OSGi build tool failed over finding java classes under > META-INF. Then it proceeded to complain about the module-info.java files. > Why these are java syntax instead of json or something more sensible for > something that only contains declarations is a mystery to me. FWIW - the OSGi > people don’t seem interested in supporting these new features - > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5592 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5592>. > > I have been able to work around some of these issues but it has made the > Log4j build very fragile and I haven’t really begun to see what happens when > log4j is actually modularized or runs in an application that is. > > Ralph > >> On May 17, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Eric Johnson <e...@tibco.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Andrew Dinn <ad...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> On 16/05/17 19:11, Gregg Wonderly wrote: >>> >>> <ad cohortem hominum snipped (pardon my French)> >>> >>>> If we really cannot actually keep from breaking 90% of existing Java >>>> in the market place when this new JDK release goes out, how valuable >>>> is JigSaw really? >>> >>> citation needed? >>> >> >> I mostly ignore jigsaw, and check in every now and then. >> >> I have a few co-workers that have poked at migrating their products to Java >> 9. So far as I know, nobody has succeeded yet. >> >> With significant regularity, I see issues pop up on this list that have odd >> problems, or persist in being unresolved. One of my favorites at the moment >> is automatic module names - a problem that Jigsaw caused for itself. Maybe >> that one is resolved for now, but I'm pretty certain that questions will >> come flooding back once Java 9 GAs. >> >> As near as I can tell, applications that compile and run under Java 8 will >> mostly *not* "just work" with Java 9 JRE. And that seems to be the lived >> experience of my co-workers. If a project is lucky, the only changes >> necessary will involve command line parameters. If a team is unlucky, they >> will need to rebuild for Java 9. If a team is really unlucky, they will >> need to partially or fully modularize. At which point some even more >> juggling is required to continue to support Java 7 & 8, if that's required >> by customers. >> >> My overall concerns for Jigsaw: >> https://medium.com/@one.eric.johnson/java-9-jigsaw-troubles-4fc406ef41e0 >> >> I'm not sure what citations you expect to see. There's probably nobody out >> there who can afford to pre-flight an EA build of Java 9 against all their >> products to see what the actual costs are going to be. Based on anecdotal >> evidence from this mailing list, significant players in the Java ecosystem >> - build tools, IDEs, critical libraries - have all had to fix unexpected >> breakages with Java 9. Obviously, the ones that don't break don't typically >> show up, so this is a self-selecting example, but an important one. >> >> However, even something as simple as requiring changes to command line >> parameters in order to launch a program compiled for Java 8 is a breaking >> change. The Jigsaw team seems to be taking this as a mere complaint, rather >> than as a genuine compatibility issue. >> >> Here's a challenge back to the Jigsaw team. Can I still do java -jar ... >> every existing Java application (without recompile!) that currently >> launches that way? I'm even willing to cut some slack and ignore >> applications that use com.sun APIs that have been "private" for years. Will >> that still work? The Jigsaw community should be able to provide evidence >> that's still possible, not that we should be required to provide evidence >> that it isn't. >> >> Eric. >> >> >>> regards, >>> >>> >>> Andrew Dinn >>> ----------- >>> >> >
