It'd be quite odd if ModuleElement and PackageElement implementations of
getSimpleName() differed. Since PackageElement.getSimpleName() is around
and has defined behaviour, ModuleElement must follow it imho.
Regards,
Michael
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:35 PM, David M. Lloyd
wrote:
> On 06/06/2017
Sounds like a well thought compromise, Mark. Real world applications need
this and it's a very welcome move.
Regards,
Michael
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:48 AM, wrote:
> Over time, as we've gotten closer and closer to the JDK 9 GA date, more
> and more developers have begun paying attention the
#1-#3, IMHO, meet the needs of a niche who knows how to work around these
issues using other ways (although inconvenient).
4 and 5 are solutions for problems any developer assembling a medium-large
application will definitely face and therefore are essential in my point of
view since it'd be unrea
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> At one point we were mulling back porting the Java 9 runtime changes to
> Java 8 and therefore we could go back to Java 7, but we decided not to
> proceed with that, which is what i suspect you may be thinking about.
>
>
Yes, I was hopeful abou
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> 8 can deal with multi-release JARs.
>
I missed that. Starting with what update? Is there any link I could use to
share this info?
Regards,
Michael
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:10 AM, David M. Lloyd
wrote:
> Just the fact that there is the *very idea* of a "fit"/"non-fit" for JPMS
> is sad though. It should have been the ubiquitous thing that everyone was
> expecting. But denying multiple versions? Blowing up on run time cycles?
> Reneging
