[jsr294-modularity-eg] Expressing module dependencies

[Peter Kriens]

Ok, now I understand what you meant.

Yes, they can be in the default package, or you could name them:  
@osgi.Config if you dont like that, up to the module system ....

The most important part is that you can create your own syntax and we  
do not have to clutter the Java syntax with Jigsaw specific constructs  
as well have to use an opaque strings with very little syntactic  
difference.

Kind regards,

	Peter Kriens





On 15 apr 2009, at 00:58, Alex Buckley wrote:

> Alex Buckley wrote:
>> Peter Kriens wrote:
>>>> What is @Bundle?
>>> An annotation ... :-) What else?
>>>
>>>> What is @Jigsaw? You're missing some import statements, unless  
>>>> you're proposing that these annotation types are handled  
>>>> specially in the JLS and javac's name interpretation logic. At  
>>>> that point, they're basically keywords.
>>> Nope, they are standard annotations, I tested it.
>> I don't understand. Of course Bundle and Jigsaw are annotation  
>> types but what package are they declared in? How come you're not  
>> importing it?
>
> Hmm, I guess they're in an unnamed package. How are you making their  
> classfiles visible to the compiler? When compiling module-info.java,  
> the only types visible will be those in modules required by that  
> very module-info.java. (Unless Bundle.class and Jigsaw.class are on  
> the bootclasspath and treated specially, which turns them into  
> pseudo-keywords as I've said before.)
>
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> jsr294-modularity-eg mailing list
> jsr294-modularity-eg at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/jsr294-modularity-eg