Hi all, As you might already know, there's been big debates about upcoming Java 9 module system. Recently Stephen Colebourne, creator Joda time, posted his thoughts [1]. Stephen mentions some potential problems with all jars since no two modules should have same package. We know from past experience that using these jars as dependencies in Maven create all sorts of problems, but with the new JPMS they might not even work? Have we tried all jars in Java 9? I'm wondering whether Stephen's problems with all jars are truly founded since Java offers no publishing itself. I mean, for that Stephen mentions to appear, you'd have to at runtime have an all jar and then individual jars, in which case it would fail. But as long as Maven does not enforce this in their repos, I think it's fine. If Maven starts enforcing this in the jars that are stored in Maven repos then yeah, we have a big problem. Thoughts? Cheers, [1] http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-se-9-jpms-module-naming.html -- Galder Zamarreño Infinispan, Red Hat _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

If it's just private packages, then we won't have to change the API ;) Personally I'm more worried about how our externalizers for JDK classes are going to work: it's going to be hard to say we support Java 9 and at the same time ask users to add a bunch of --add-opens [1] to their JVM arguments. I stopped updating the POM comment at some point, but most other requirements for access to private JDK fields seem to come from WildFly/Pax Exam. [1]: https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/parent/pom.xml#L1614 Cheers Dan On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org&gt; wrote: > N.B. one problem many are not aware of is that - unlike with OSGi - > the restriction in Jigsaw also applies to private packages, e.g. > packages you're using within the jar but have no intention to "export" > make public. > > So having this sorted out for OSGi doesn't mean that it will work fine > with Jigsaw. > > I suspect we didn't test this, as far as I know we've only tested > running and compiling withing JDK9 but Infinispan itself is not > defining module descriptors; i.e. it's not modularized. > > It's very likely that when we'll want to "modularize it" we'll have to > change APIs. > > Thanks, > Sanne > > > On 4 May 2017 at 07:26, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As you might already know, there's been big debates about upcoming Java 9 module system. >> >> Recently Stephen Colebourne, creator Joda time, posted his thoughts [1]. >> >> Stephen mentions some potential problems with all jars since no two modules should have same package. We know from past experience that using these jars as dependencies in Maven create all sorts of problems, but with the new JPMS they might not even work? >> >> Have we tried all jars in Java 9? I'm wondering whether Stephen's problems with all jars are truly founded since Java offers no publishing itself. I mean, for that Stephen mentions to appear, you'd have to at runtime have an all jar and then individual jars, in which case it would fail. But as long as Maven does not enforce this in their repos, I think it's fine. If Maven starts enforcing this in the jars that are stored in Maven repos then yeah, we have a big problem. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Cheers, >> >> [1] http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-se-9-jpms-module-naming.html >> -- >> Galder Zamarreño >> Infinispan, Red Hat >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

On 4 May 2017 at 12:03, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > Personally I'm more worried about how our externalizers for JDK > classes are going to work: it's going to be hard to say we support > Java 9 and at the same time ask users to add a bunch of --add-opens > [1] to their JVM arguments. I stopped updating the POM comment at some > point, but most other requirements for access to private JDK fields > seem to come from WildFly/Pax Exam. Using "add-opens" is not the only option, and I agree it's not desirable - especially for embedded users. Read the Hibernate blog for some alternatives, but hey yes the APIs will have to change ;) - http://in.relation.to/2017/04/11/accessing-private-state-of-java-9-modules/