Skip to content

Ability to depend on JDK modules #291

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jlahoda
Copy link
Contributor

@jlahoda jlahoda commented Nov 23, 2017

This is a work-in-progress patch, mostly for discussion, not intended to be merged as is.

The goal here is to allow NetBeans modules (modules in the NetBeans Module System) depend on JDK modules. As a result dependencies on JDK modules are much more precise. Some more information is here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/JDK+Modules+Support+in+NetBeans+Module+System

There are 3 commits in this request, the middle one " Automatically adding JDK module dependencies to existing modules." is mechanically generated, based on jdeps output for the given module.

Feedback is welcome.

@geertjanw
Copy link
Member

To me, looks good. Any comments/feedback from anyone?

@lkishalmi
Copy link
Contributor

@jlahoda Are we expecting any progress on this? Or just close this one?

@lkishalmi lkishalmi requested a review from JaroslavTulach July 7, 2020 22:05
Copy link

@JaroslavTulach JaroslavTulach left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like the approach a lot. Modularized JDK is here to stay and getting ready for it is great. It is fantastic that it also works on JDK8. That gives us smooth migration path to JDK modules, without forcing us to drop JDK8!

The code needs some more polishing (I've noticed some debug messages and reading of a file from the source structure), but overall the approach is great.

@jlahoda
Copy link
Contributor Author

jlahoda commented Jul 9, 2020

@lkishalmi I would love to see some progress, but didn't have much time for quite some time. If you prefer, we can close this - it is easy to reopen or open a new PR after all.

@lkishalmi
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @jlahoda can you rebase this one on the current master, if it is still relevan. Let's not have this one bitrot in here...

@mbien mbien added the stale No recent activity - likely to be closed. label Sep 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
stale No recent activity - likely to be closed. work-in-progress
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants