Re: Implied readability + layers

On 06/11/2015 10:59, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: : module com.foo { requires com.baz; exports com.foo; } In this example then com.foo will also need to require com.bar as otherwise com.foo will not compile (I assume you've deliberately removed the requires public for this

Re: Implied readability + layers

Hi, On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Alex Buckley wrote: > > > com.foo in layer2 requires com.baz in layer1, right? Yes. > > com.baz in layer1 uses types from com.bar in layer1, and NOT from com.bar > in layer2, right? Yes. > > Therefore, com.foo uses types from com.bar

Re: Implied readability + layers

On 06/11/2015 19:18, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: This is my bad, I emitted requires public when typing mail. The is correct version: module com.baz{ requires public com.baz; exports com.bar; } Stil result is: foo.canRead(bar2) -> true foo.canRead(bar1) -> false

Re: Implied readability + layers

Hi, On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > > On 06/11/2015 19:18, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: > >> >> > Right, I think you are running into issue again where the two versions of > com.bar have equal ModuleDescriptors. When you create modular JAR then I'm >

Re: Implied readability + layers

Hi, On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > > On 06/11/2015 10:59, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: > >> : >> >> module com.foo { >> requires com.baz; >> >> exports com.foo; >> >> } >> > In this example then com.foo will also need to require com.bar

Re: Implied readability + layers

Hi, On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Alex Buckley wrote: > >> >> importcom.bar.Bar; >> public classBaz { >> publicString baz(){return newBar().bar();} >> publicBar bar(){ >> return newBar(); >> } >> } >> > > I expect javac will warn about the

Re: Implied readability + layers

On 04/11/2015 22:45, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: : So you say com.bar@2 does not override com.bar@1 in layer2 and types will be loaded from com.bar@1 in layer2 for com.foo? The configuration for layer2 doesn't contain any modules that require com.bar. If you expand the scenario to com.bax requires

Re: Implied readability + layers

Hi, On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > On 05/11/2015 09:30, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: > > Hi alan, > So far quite disappointing! > > > In this example then com.baz in layer1 doesn't know anything about > com.bar@2 or other modules that comes into existence

RE: Implied readability + layers

> -Original Message- > From: jigsaw-dev [mailto:jigsaw-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of > Alan Bateman > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 4:51 PM > To: Ali Ebrahimi <ali.ebrahimi1...@gmail.com> > Cc: jigsaw-dev <jigsaw-dev@openjdk.java.net> >

Re: Implied readability + layers

On 05/11/2015 13:17, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: If API usage of com.baz in com.foo does not contain any type of com.bar you wouldn't have any issue, otherwise com.foo must live on layer1. Are there com.bar types in com.baz's API? If not then users of com.baz need to vigorously lobby the

Re: Implied readability + layers

On 11/5/2015 1:30 AM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: Hi alan, So far quite disappointing! But I think Alex's last response on this topic says opposite of this: "We'll have to think about the implication of com.baz in layer1 sometimes offering a 'requires public' on com.bar in layer1, and sometimes

Re: Implied readability + layers

Hi, So with current implementation of Implied readability w.r.t. layers and unexpected consequences of its remove or addition, I strongly propose to drop it from current design. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > On 05/11/2015 15:06, Ali Ebrahimi

Re: Implied readability + layers

On 11/5/2015 12:42 PM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Peter Levart wrote: On 11/05/2015 07:39 PM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: So with current implementation of Implied readability w.r.t. layers and unexpected consequences of its remove or addition, I

Re: Implied readability + layers

On 11/05/2015 10:21 PM, Alex Buckley wrote: On 11/5/2015 12:42 PM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Peter Levart wrote: On 11/05/2015 07:39 PM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: So with current implementation of Implied readability w.r.t. layers and unexpected

Re: Implied readability + layers

Hi, On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Alex Buckley wrote: > >> > A single version of com.bar in a program is strongly presumed to be better > than multiple versions of com.bar in a program. > In Ideal world this would be perfect. But, If you use many modules from

Re: Implied readability + layers

On 11/5/2015 10:39 AM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: Hi, So with current implementation of Implied readability w.r.t. layers and unexpected consequences of its remove or addition, I strongly propose to drop it from current design. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Alan Bateman

Re: Implied readability + layers

On 11/5/2015 2:02 PM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: Hi, On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Alex Buckley > wrote: On 11/5/2015 1:30 AM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: Hi alan, So far quite disappointing! But I think Alex's last

Re: Implied readability + layers

Hi, On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Peter Levart wrote: > > > On 11/05/2015 07:39 PM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: > > Hi, > So with current implementation of Implied readability w.r.t. layers and > unexpected consequences of its remove or addition, I strongly propose to > drop

Re: Implied readability + layers

On 11/5/2015 2:30 PM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Alex Buckley > wrote: A single version of com.bar in a program is strongly presumed to be better than multiple versions of com.bar in a program. In Ideal

Re: Implied readability + layers

On 05/11/2015 15:06, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: : If com.foo does not use any com.baz's com.bar depend API or com.bar depend API added latter or requires public in com.baz added later or removed latter any com.foo may be not aware that, estimating what version of com.bar for com.foo module that

Re: Implied readability + layers

Hi, On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > > On 04/11/2015 16:26, Ali Ebrahimi wrote: > > : > > Yes, I got it. But should not upper level descriptors win over lower > descriptors regards to current configuration. > What I missed here? > > (Changing the