Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

OK. I'll make that change as part of JDK-8177341. -- Kevin Alex Buckley wrote: Yes, I recommend not pointing ordinary consumers of JavaFX to java.lang.reflect.Module::add* methods. If open-ness is ever mentioned (and as you know, I do like it to be acknowledged), then it can be

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Yes, I recommend not pointing ordinary consumers of JavaFX to java.lang.reflect.Module::add* methods. If open-ness is ever mentioned (and as you know, I do like it to be acknowledged), then it can be parenthetical. Alex On 4/21/2017 4:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: OK, so you recommend

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

OK, so you recommend changing module-info.class to module-info.java and removing the reference to Module#addExports entirely, right? I can fix this as part of a general cleanup JBS issue [1] that is left open to pick up various typos, etc. Would you recommend the same for the FXML annotation,

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Alan Bateman wrote: On 20/04/2017 19:06, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to "accessible to"). http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.02/

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

On 20/04/2017 19:06, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to "accessible to"). http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.02/ Additionally, I removed the

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

+1 Mandy > On Apr 20, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed > the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to > "accessible to"). > >

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to "accessible to"). http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.02/ Additionally, I removed the example in the FXML annotation showing the use of

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Mandy Chung wrote: On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours:

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > > > Alan Bateman wrote: >> >> >> On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >>> Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and >>> yours: >>> >>>

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.01/ -- Kevin This looks mostly okay. I guess for FXML then I assume that the annotated member

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.01/ -- Kevin This looks mostly okay. I guess for FXML then I assume that the annotated member could be public, in which

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.01/ -- Kevin Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/04/2017 01:00, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Please review the following javadoc change:

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

On 18/04/2017 01:00, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Please review the following javadoc change: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178015 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.00/ This restores the links to the Module class that had to be removed during the transition period for the

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

> On Apr 17, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > Please review the following javadoc change: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178015 > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.00/ > + * Applications in a Module : + * {@link

[9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Please review the following javadoc change: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178015 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.00/ This restores the links to the Module class that had to be removed during the transition period for the move of Module and Layer from