Hello, Alan
Thank you for your suggestions, help, and time. I truly appreciate and am
deeply grateful for them.
However, I’m afraid I failed to convey the most crucial point. Therefore, I
decided to illustrate it graphically. I believe everything will become clear
now.
Please, see https://ibb.co/bLTzp0n
If you have any questions, I’m ready to answer them, as I’ve already mentioned,
this matter is extremely important to me.
On 1/13/25 09:54, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 12/01/2025 09:12, Code Ranger wrote:
1. I see that JDK-8347283 was closed with your comment. I don't agree with you
decision, but I can be wrong. Let me explain, why I think that is wrong using
this concrete example.
Boot layer has jdk modules and main application modules. The CORE module of the
application creates plugins with child layers. No one in the world can know
what plugins will be created and used when the main application starts. Now,
somewhere in the future, the module A from plugin X will require module B from
boot layer to open its package to module A. I believe, that the only solution
to do it is to provide the controller of the boot layer.
2. Now, I tried to do apiModule.addOpens in CORE module. I got:
java.lang.IllegalCallerException: com.foo.api.packagename is not open to module
com.foo.core
at java.base/java.lang.Module.addOpens(Module.java:918) ~[?:?]
Therefore, as far as I understand, for the solution you are suggesting to work,
the packagename package of the API module must be opened to the Core module.
But the main problem, as I've said above - no one knows in advance which
packages of which modules from the boot layer will need to be opened/exported,
etc., to the plugins that will be created by users and deployed dynamically.
Your second mail reveals a bit more but it's not clear if your issue is one of
these scenarios:
1. A serialization library that is incompatible with strong encapsulation. If
so, that's a different discussion.
2. The API and CORE modules have some interesting internals that the authors of
these modules have chosen not to export. The author of a plugin doesn't agree.
As you've found, this can only be facilitated with cooperation from code in
CORE. It may additionally require CLI option if API won't open its packages to
CORE. This means running with --add-opens API/com.foo.api=CORE so that CORE can
open API's package to the plugin module in the child layer.
3. A badly behaved plugin that depends on the internals of standard or JDK
modules. This would be whack-a-mole and require a combination of CLI options
and code in CORE to open java.* and jdk.* packages to the offending code in the
plugin.
-Alan
