[jsr294-modularity-eg] Simple Module System Proposal

[Stephen J. McConnell]

On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 09:11 -0400, BJ Hargrave wrote:
> Stuart is correct. I am objecting to all SMS modules in one class
> loader. The SMS proposal suggests a 1-1 mapping of module to class
> loader. 

OK - you getting me a little confused here. It seems to me as an
observer, that SMS is an acronym initiated by Peter as an abbreviation
for the suggestion that the expert group consider a "Simple Module
System Proposal". I should also note that I have not seen any
indications of consensus or agreement that the proposal is anything more
than proposal to pursue some noble aims and objectives.  Clearly, SMS is
undefined and remains a topic for you, Peter and Richard put some
clothes around.

On the other-hand - if you are using SMS as a generalised reference to
any potential implementation of the evolving 294 modularisation work,
then I still have a problem, because when I look at the proposed
language changes [1] I see a description of modularisation data and the
description of semantics that link modules with classloader machinery.
If I drill down into the Jigsaw project code [2], I see an
implementation framework that allows the mapping of module-info data to
Configurations that expose Context objects that aggregate Modules (via
ModuleInfo references) into classloaders.  As I mentioned earlier, that
framework seems to be mapping modules to classloaders on a 1:1 basis
(with the note that this can be a n:1 relationship when we take into
account the local modifier on the requires directive). 

Clearly neither of these scenarios make sense.

Please set me strait.

Cheers, Steve.


[1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/doc/language.html
[2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/jigsaw/api/


-- 
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell at dpml.net
http://www.dpml.net
mobile: +61 4 5800 3980