On 2018-01-01 Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2017-12-31, Lasse Collin wrote: > > Would it be too complicated to turn XZ into a proper module? How > > useful is that? > > As XZ hasn't got any dependencies you'd only benefit from an explicit > module info if you wanted to restrict the set of packages you > expose.
This could be nice, but in practice there's no reason for anyone to use the internal (unstable) APIs. If someone does, he can blame himself. ;-) > Otherwise I think Automatic-Module-Name would achieve exactly > the same thing that you could achieve with an explicit > module-info.java. At least for now. module-info.java may give you more > control in the long term, though. OK. It can be added later if needed. > > From what I read, it needs module-info.java which should be easy to > > write as XZ doesn't depend on external packages. I don't know how to > > set it up with Ant. It would be very good if XZ could be built on > > older JDKs too, even if those compilers cannot build the > > module-info.java file. > > You could check for JDK9 and only compile module-info.java if you > found it. That way XZ compiled with Java8 or earlier wouldn't be a > proper Java9 module and one compiled with Java9 would contain the > module descriptor. > > Assuming you'd want to target Java7 and compile module-info.java if > Ant was actually on Java9 something like the patch below should do > it. Here module-info.java would be compiled by a separate javac task > that comes up with an empty set of sources to compile on Java8 and > earlier. Thanks, this looks exactly like what I asked. I think I will build the next release with -source 1.5 -target 1.5 and thus not with OpenJDK 9. So module-info.java will need to wait for now. -- Lasse Collin | IRC: Larhzu @ IRCnet & Freenode
