[jsr294-modularity-eg] Nested superpackages

[Andreas Sterbenz]

Glyn Normington wrote:
> 
> So if we really want JSR 294 to address the requirement exemplified by 
> LUNI, should we not see whether there is a better information hiding 
> approach than the current nested superpackage proposal? For instance, 
> has class name prefixing being considered, along the same lines that 
> were used for nested classes to prevent unexported classes clashing 
> unexpectedly?

Good to hear that you agree that this is an issue we need to address and 
that java.lang/util/io is a good example of the requirements. And let's 
note that multiple types of the same name are not an issue for 
java.lang/util/io.

Do you feel that there is some information hiding requirement exemplified 
by java.lang/util/io that is not addressed by the nested superpackage 
proposal? Or is it the current syntax for nested superpackage that is the 
cause of your concern?

Andreas.