Alex.Buckley at Sun.COM
Mon Jul 27 17:43:56 EDT 2009
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> The "simple as possible" part for visibility is a little more
> complicated. This is where we get into the "requires" concept. Since we
> couldn't agree on all the features needed for "requires", we decided to
> leave it completely up to the module system being used. This doesn't
> seem "as simple as possible".
> This brought us to Peter's proposal which, ignoring all the details, in
> my view ultimately boils down to defining a simple "requires" definition
> that is agreeable to and can be mapped onto various module systems.
> Thus, this one simple "requires" concept could be taught to all users
> and they could get the same behavior no matter which module system they
> If possible, this now seems like a step in the simpler direction, even
> if we only define this simpler "requires" concept to just provide
> visibility to all public types in the target module and nothing more.
I'd like to hear if Peter agrees with your summary, but I have no
problem in agreeing to this definition of 'requires'. The 'target
module' would of course be chosen by a module system up to versioning
and other details. This was, substantially, requirement #6 back in .
More information about the jsr294-modularity-eg