Re: Avoiding same-package conflicts

I can second that by an example using Groovy. We have not yet taken steps to make jigsaw modules, but we quite some time ago we have split the code base in what would become eventually become modules in the future. Because of history this did mean to split packages. So we have a couple of jars

Re: Avoiding same-package conflicts

On 29 October 2015 at 13:48, Alan Bateman wrote: > The restriction is that no two modules with the same package (irrespective > of whether it is exported or not, or who reads the modules) can be mapped to > the same class loader. FWIW, I think that this could be a

Re: Avoiding same-package conflicts

On 10/30/2015 04:12 AM, Martin Lehmann wrote: Hi David, hi all, thanks, David, for your response. Sure, reply is inline. Full ACK. Bad practice. I disagree, actually. I think that this is a completely needless and artificial restriction that arose from implementation decisions, not from

RE: Avoiding same-package conflicts

Hi David, hi all, thanks, David, for your response. >> Full ACK. Bad practice. >I disagree, actually. I think that this is a completely needless and >artificial restriction that arose from implementation decisions, not from a >valid requirement. You have a point. I don't disagree ;-) >> So

JOSM feedback on Java 7,8,9, including Jigsaw EA

Hi, Following the recent inclusion of JOSM to the Quality Outreach list by the Adoption Group, we have compiled every single Java issue we have encountered, and reported when it was new, for the latest versions of Java, on a single page: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/JavaBugs We will use

Re: JOSM feedback on Java 7,8,9, including Jigsaw EA

On 30/10/2015 15:29, Vincent Privat wrote: Hi, Following the recent inclusion of JOSM to the Quality Outreach list by the Adoption Group, we have compiled every single Java issue we have encountered, and reported when it was new, for the latest versions of Java, on a single page:

Re: JOSM feedback on Java 7,8,9, including Jigsaw EA

Thanks for reporting these issues. > On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Vincent Privat > wrote: > > Concerning Jigsaw: > - We have reported 3 bugs. All made it to the public JIRA: 8138878, > 8140477, 8140481. The second one is a bit problematic for our tests as it >

Re: JOSM feedback on Java 7,8,9, including Jigsaw EA

On 30/10/2015 15:29, Vincent Privat wrote: : Concerning Jigsaw: - We have reported 3 bugs. All made it to the public JIRA: 8138878, 8140477, 8140481. The second one is a bit problematic for our tests as it basically kills our Jenkins instance. I see the two other ones are understood/in

Re: JOSM feedback on Java 7,8,9, including Jigsaw EA

On 30.10.2015 18:02, Alan Bateman wrote: On 30/10/2015 15:29, Vincent Privat wrote: > : > > Concerning Jigsaw: > - We have reported 3 bugs. All made it to the public JIRA: 8138878, > 8140477, 8140481. The second one is a bit problematic for our tests as > it basically kills our Jenkins

Re: Avoiding same-package conflicts

On 30/10/2015 11:28, Stephen Colebourne wrote: : Here are three cases that appear to be troubled by these restrictions: - a large project that has taken an existing project (module) and split it in two. In order to preserve backwards compatibility, the author wants to retain the package

Re: JOSM feedback on Java 7,8,9, including Jigsaw EA

2015-10-30 18:02 GMT+01:00 Alan Bateman : > > JDK-8138878 seems to be JSOM hacking into private field in > java.awt.Toolkit. It is possible to discuss the issue on awt-dev and > i18n-dev to see if the changing locale scenario is meant to work? > > Yes, this is a hack we