On 23 Apr 2023, at 18:16, Gregg Wonderly <gregg...@cox.net<mailto:gregg...@cox.net>> wrote:
It seems “bad” to somehow impose an order by taking a “package” (jar) and turning it into a list (classpath). The modules in the JAR won’t be able to have split packages so order shouldn’t matter. Again, I really think that order of reference and use should be explicit. If there is manifest data describing an ordering that is explicit there, that might work, but we still have the problem that if I need a different ordering to use a service or other interface implementation as an override of what the multi-module jar contains, we need to control that somehow very explicitly. Stacking so many “orderings” to implicit details will be more problematic than a simplifying detail it seems to me. Ordering shouldn’t (ideally) matter at all. If an application wants to “override" A with B to ensure A isn’t used, it should not include A. The old way is to just throw everything into one big pile and let the runtime choose what gets used according to some rules; the new way is supposed to be different. The application specifies everything it uses and nothing but what it uses. Providing too much should, ideally, fail just as providing too little. — Ron
