On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 13:37:49 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Happy to accept rewording here. I do want to pull out that there *is* a >> conceptual reason for treating module names like domain authorities though, >> or just make the code treat the whole path the same. >> Having unexplained weirdness like this just ends up being a drain on future >> maintainers otherwise. > >> Happy to accept rewording here. I do want to pull out that there _is_ a >> conceptual reason for treating module names like domain authorities though, >> or just make the code treat the whole path the same. Having unexplained >> weirdness like this just ends up being a drain on future maintainers >> otherwise. > > I don't disagree on the weirdness but I don't want to mislead readers that > this has anything to do with the URL authority component (the jrt scheme does > not have this component). However to explain the weirdness requires digging > into history, probably the jake repo where the changes for JEP 220 were > accumulated before the JEP was integrated. The alternative is to permit module names to use percent encoding, since package names (and thus module names) can include non-ASCII characters, and doing so would simplify the code, but it also allows a level of obfuscateability to the URLs which we might not desire (unless we reject any over-encoding of ASCII). ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25871#discussion_r2154678242
