Thanks Alan. After sending my original message, I realized even listing out
names could be confusing if not given proper context. It's so easy to
forget that an exploded module directory name has *nothing* to do with the
actual module name. Thus, a message showing "[com.domain1, com.domain2,
com.do
On 11/07/2016 19:48, Paul Benedict wrote:
Regarding this exception:
java.lang.module.ResolutionException: Two versions of module com.domain2
found in mods
I have three requests:
1) The "two versions" is actually misleading. In my system, I purposely
created three "com.domain2" in my modules di
Nevermind. Strike that follow-up, please. The "exports" regards packages.
Cheers,
Paul
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Thanks Jon. I bet the marker placement code is shared code because the
> same problem is exhibited with other keywords like "exports". Just wanted
> to
Thanks Jon. I bet the marker placement code is shared code because the same
problem is exhibited with other keywords like "exports". Just wanted to
point that out in case a unit test is written. You'd want to see it
corrected despite the keyword.
Cheers,
Paul
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Jona
Noted. Thanks for the report.
-- Jon
On 07/11/2016 12:24 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
Error from the command line:
src\com.domain2\module-info.java:2: error: module not found: com.domain1
requires com.domain1;
^
If you can't see this message in fixed-width font, please note
Error from the command line:
src\com.domain2\module-info.java:2: error: module not found: com.domain1
requires com.domain1;
^
If you can't see this message in fixed-width font, please note the caret
sign placed at the dot in the module name. Since the dot(s) in the module
name
Regarding this exception:
java.lang.module.ResolutionException: Two versions of module com.domain2
found in mods
I have three requests:
1) The "two versions" is actually misleading. In my system, I purposely
created three "com.domain2" in my modules directory. It's better to just
say there is a "
Hi,
For Windows Uusers, the JDK as Windows Installer is often a pain, especially
for automated build systems like Jenkins with dynamically spawned virtual
machines. It is also impossible to have multiple versions installed for testing
purposes in parallel (installing another one from same main
Changeset: 297d01806519
Author:alanb
Date: 2016-07-11 18:11 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jigsaw/jake/jdk/rev/297d01806519
Add wording to Deprecated
Contributed-by: joe.da...@oracle.com
! src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Deprecated.java
> How about the following helper method on ModulePool:
>
> Optional findModule(ModuleEntry me);
>
> then the intent in code might be a littler clearer on the context.
After thinking about this at bit: If we did that and then later worked out a
way to optimize across modules, we’d have to hunt
Thanks Alan. I actually want to get both as a ZIP though, so I figured
Jigsaw might be the right place to still ask, but no? Is core-lib a better
place? I like to switch between the EA JDK 9 builds and Jigsaw for
comparisons. Sometimes I want bleeding edge from Jigsaw; sometimes a more
official fea
On 11/07/2016 17:09, Paul Benedict wrote:
:
It's a pattern I see myself and others do habitually for several years. So
if there's any insight you can provide on why a Windows ZIP doesn't exist
(policy? hasn't been asked for?), I would appreciate it. Thank you!
Since you send this to jigsaw-d
Hi Dailbor,
For Windows, I know the JDK only comes as a Windows Installer, but is their
a reason that the JDK cannot be downloaded as a ZIP file? When it comes to
the several companies I've been in, it's not a preferred practice that the
JDK actually gets installed this way.
Likewise, I wish not
Hi Rémi,
Le dim. 10 juil. 2016 à 23:41, Remi Forax a écrit :
> Hi Antoine,
> you were sleeping during my presentation at last Devoxx FR :)
>
I was probably giving mine ;).
The issue is that an automatic jar can access to the classpath while a
> modular jar can not,
> so if jlink allows automat
The jpms-spec-comments list is meant to be the JSR 376 EG's "suggestion
box" rather than a discussion forum. Please do not cross post to that
list. I've enabled moderation on that list and, going forward, I'll
reject any cross-posted messages.
- Mark
The crux of this access control discussion is that, up until JDK 9,
"public" meant "public". End of story. If you did not want something
to be visible, you made it not public. Very simple and very clear. The
word "public" literally means "accessible to all" after all; that's why
the term wa
I have not followed the discussion of the problem. But this test looks
simple and fine to me. The test may be helpful to replay the issue.
Better to add more comments in the test about what's the problem the
test case cares about.
Thanks,
Xuelei
On 7/11/2016 9:14 AM, Wang Weijun wrote:
> Hi All
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 11, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
>
>> On 11 Jul 2016, at 14:17, Jim Laskey (Oracle)
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’m not sure if we can determine supplied classes vs others unless we
>> provide a flag or the set of supplied modules. At any rate, the rules for
> On 11 Jul 2016, at 14:17, Jim Laskey (Oracle) wrote:
>
> I’m not sure if we can determine supplied classes vs others unless we provide
> a flag or the set of supplied modules. At any rate, the rules for cross
> module optimization would still be complex.
>
Ok.
> ModuleEntry.findEntry: I
I’m not sure if we can determine supplied classes vs others unless we provide a
flag or the set of supplied modules. At any rate, the rules for cross module
optimization would still be complex.
ModuleEntry.findEntry: I was half thinking the same once I realized the limits
of the lookup. The c
Hi Jochen,
On 07/11/2016 12:24 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 11.07.2016 11:43, Peter Levart wrote:
[...]
Here's a simplified idea. Suppose MyReflection uses java reflection to
invoke target methods directly and it is already arranged so that
MyReflection has access to hidden methods in both
On 11/07/2016 10:41, Andrew Dinn wrote:
:
I don't think there is any confusion here other that that you have
failed to note an important part of what is being asked for and, in
consequence, recognise why that request was made. Jason, Paul and I all
said we would like to see some sort of privileg
On 11.07.2016 11:43, Peter Levart wrote:
[...]
Here's a simplified idea. Suppose MyReflection uses java reflection to
invoke target methods directly and it is already arranged so that
MyReflection has access to hidden methods in both M1 and M2 (let's take
the generated M1|M2Accessor(s) out of t
Hi Jim.
Do you anticipate support across module boundaries given your comment?
282 // Navigating other modules via requires and exports is problematic
283 // since we cannot construct the runtime model of loaders and
layers.
it might be possible to emulate runtime resolution a
On 11.07.2016 09:46, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 10/07/2016 11:04, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
[...]
Let me rephrase the scenario from there a bit:
I am trying to figure out the configuration and implications of the
configuration and what is different to from before using modules. Let
us for simplicit
Hi Jochen,
I will not interfere with the discussion you have with Alan about how to
arrange the access among modules. I'll just try to touch the last part
(Part 3) where you are asking whether bringing MethodHandles into the
picture changes anything about isolating M1 and M2 form each other...
On 09/07/16 22:22, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Hence the `exports dynamic` proposal. There is a lot of confusion in
> this thread and it might be useful if someone could try out a scenario
> with an injectable constructor or method on a type in an otherwise
> non-exported package. That might help get the
On 10/07/2016 11:04, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
Hi,
since Alan suggested to make a new thread for this (coming from
"Feedback on proposal for #ReflectiveAccessToNonExportedTypes"), I
will do just this.
Thanks for starting a new thread.
Let me rephrase the scenario from there a bit:
I am tryi
28 matches
Mail list logo
