On 27/12/2020 09:50, Gunnar Morling wrote:
Thanks for clarifying, Alan. So it is intended and well-documented,
it's still not quite clear to me though *why* that is. Wouldn#t it be
more in line with the module system's goal of reliability to reject
such error-prone configuration?
Reliable
Thanks for clarifying, Alan. So it is intended and well-documented, it's
still not quite clear to me though *why* that is. Wouldn#t it be more in
line with the module system's goal of reliability to reject such
error-prone configuration?
--Gunnar
Am Sa., 26. Dez. 2020 um 19:04 Uhr schrieb Alan
On 26/12/2020 16:26, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
If the two modules with the same name are in different positions on
the module path, the first one will be seen and will completely hide
any subsequent occurrences of modules with the same name.
If two modules with the same name are found in the
Why is this situation not considered an error though? Relying on ordering
on the module path seems to go against one of the core promises of the
module system: reliability and less "surprises".
--Gunnar
Am Sa., 26. Dez. 2020 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Gibbons <
jonathan.gibb...@oracle.com>:
If the two modules with the same name are in different positions on the
module path, the first one will be seen and will completely hide any
subsequent occurrences of modules with the same name.
If two modules with the same name are found in the same directory on the
module path, such as in
Hi,
So far it was my assumption that the module system would reject
multiple modules with the same name to be present.
But this seems not to be the case; if I have two versions of a module JAR
on my module path -- i.e. two modules which have the same module name and
export the same set of
