[jsr294-modularity-eg] Fw: Nested superpackage visibility
glyn_normington at uk.ibm.com
Thu Jun 28 10:01:34 EDT 2007
Rather than continue the discussion in private, I'm forwarding the comment
below from the observer who prompted this thread, Ulf Ochsenfahrt, for
consideration and to create a public record of the responses.
I'll let Ulf introduce himself:
> Let me shortly introduce myself. My name is Ulf Ochsenfahrt, and I have
> studied Computer Science in Rostock, Germany, and Stanford, US. As an
> avid Java programmer, I have been following the JSR 294 mailing list
----- Forwarded by glyn_normington at uk.ibm.com on 28/06/07 02:54 PM -----
Ulf Ochsenfahrt <ulf at ofahrt.de> wrote on 28/06/2007 10:19:00 AM:
> Glyn Normington wrote:
> > Hi Ulf
> > Sibling nested superpackages can see each other's exported types.
> > you like to reword your comment based on that?
> That is a significant clarification, and it makes the proposal more
> complex from a conceptual point of view. Instead of just a tree, the
> structure becomes something like a tree, but not quite:
> / \
> [b c]
> / \ \
> [d e] f
> In the example, b and c form something like a subsystem (just like in
> the 'subsystem' proposal), but without the flexibility.
> The next question must of course be: Are superpackages allowed to access
> their siblings children (nephews)? What about cousins?
> The more superpackages are accessible, the weaker the proposal gets
> (because there are more and more 'exceptions' to the tree structure),
> and the more complex its conceptual model becomes.
> What if a strict separation between b and c is desired? Then we need to
> insert dummy nodes into that tree, such that b and c are not mutually
> accessible any more.
> What if c is supposed to be able to access e? Then both e _and_ d have
> to be pulled up to the level of b and c, even though d has nothing to do
> with this (supposedly d and e access each other). Talk about
> The more superpackages are accessible, the more one must ask whether a
> tree is a good idea to represent these kinds of relationships.
> What do you think?
> -- Ulf
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the jsr294-modularity-eg