Alex.Buckley at Sun.COM
Mon Jul 27 14:49:21 EDT 2009
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 7/24/09 7:40 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>> It seems somewhat defeatist to just resign ourselves to the fact that
>>> we need a design-by-committee, meta-ish approach. I agree with
>>> Peter's overall goal of trying to be more concrete. The trick is
>>> keeping it small, while leaving room for module systems to do their
>>> own thing.
>> I agree they should do their own thing w.r.t. visibility; for
>> accessibility, the language's model must be kept as simple as possible.
> It seems if we were keeping it "as simple as possible", we would just
> define module accessibility and that's it.
294 relaunched this year to cover both accessibility and visibility. We
have a simple accessibility model based on module membership, that
compile-time and runtime tools can build on to simulate features like
nesting and 'implementation modules'. Proposals that further enrich
accessibility in the hope we'll give up or time out on visibility are
Anyone who actively argues against addressing both accessibility and
visibility should leave the EG.
More information about the jsr294-modularity-eg