jamesfredley commented on PR #15959:
URL: https://github.com/apache/grails-core/pull/15959#issuecomment-4997825974

   You're right that we have split packages - I verified it against the source 
tree. The same package is declared across multiple published jars in at least:
   
   - `org.grails.plugins.web.taglib` -> **4 modules** (`grails-gsp`, 
`grails-layout`, `grails-sitemesh3`, `grails-web-gsp-taglib`)
   - `org.grails.events` -> `grails-events-core`, `grails-events-transforms`
   - `org.grails.events.spring` -> `grails-events`, `grails-events-spring`
   - `org.grails.async.transform.internal` -> `grails-async`, 
`grails-async-core`
   
   Those genuinely break module-path consumption - a consumer placing these 
jars on the module path hits "package X in both module A and module B" - so the 
concern about advertising a JPMS readiness we don't have is valid.
   
   One scope clarification for the record: `Automatic-Module-Name` only 
stabilizes the module *name* (versus the volatile filename-derived automatic 
name); it doesn't itself create or enforce the split-package rule, and those 
packages already break module-path use today regardless of this PR. The 
pre-release review (Google Doc 6.2) framed automatic module names as a low-risk 
manifest step and full `module-info` (which would *expose* split packages) as 
later work. But your point that a stable module name signals module-path intent 
stands.
   
   Given that, I think the right call is your (a): **defer this until the 
split-package modules are repackaged**, rather than shipping mixed signals. The 
alternative - adding `Automatic-Module-Name` only to the clean majority and 
explicitly excluding the split-package modules (the gsp/layout/sitemesh3/taglib 
set, events*, async*) - is possible but muddier. I'll hold/close this PR and 
instead open a tracked task for the split-package repackaging, which is the 
real prerequisite. Sound right?
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to