[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10255?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17448721#comment-17448721
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-10255 at 11/24/21, 4:42 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes we need to declare the SPI's we provide for external use, see java.base
exaple:
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/classes/module-info.java#L368-L398
It says "uses" for all the SPI interfaces it exports. In addition the
implementations are listed like in Dawid's PR.
So we must add:
{code:java}
uses org.apache.lucene.codecs.Codec;
{code}
Because our code consumes the Codec SPI provided by other modules. Downstream
modules like Luke do not need to do this, because they don't call ServiceLoader
directly, they use a factory method `Codec.forName()`.
and also the implementations (already done):
{code}
provides org.apache.lucene.codecs.Codec with
org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene90.Lucene90Codec;
{code}
was (Author: thetaphi):
Yes we need to declare the SPI's we provide for external use, see java.base
exaple:
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/classes/module-info.java#L368-L398
It says "uses" for all the SPI interfaces it exports. In addition the
implementations are listed like in Dawid's PR.
So we must add:
{code:java}
uses org.apache.lucene.codecs.Codec;
{code}
(because our code consumes the Codec SPI provided by other modules).
and also the implementations (already done):
{code}
provides org.apache.lucene.codecs.Codec with
org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene90.Lucene90Codec;
{code}
> Fully embrace the java module system
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10255
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10255
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Dawid Weiss
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 2h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> I've experimented a bit trying to move the code to the JMS. It is
> _surprisingly difficult_... A PoC that almost passes all checks is here:
> https://github.com/dweiss/lucene/tree/jms
> Here are my conclusions so far:
> * The JMS and gradle add a lot of complexity (this applies to any
> higher-level tooling, including IDEs, I think). For starters, modules have to
> be JARs. The effect of this is that what was previously a set of directories
> from dependencies now has to be a JAR. What was previously an incremental
> update of a single .class file now ripples throughout the build recreating
> module JARs (ZIPs!)... I didn't realize it at first, but it's a costly thing
> to do. I'm not even sure how IDEs handle this issue.
> * A Java module contains metadata (such as the module version or main class)
> that is completely detached from any source file. These things live in a
> class bytecode of the compiled module-info; interestingly, there is no
> source-level way to specify it - these class attributes are injected by the
> 'jar' tool. Gradle has some fancy on-the-fly asm conversion filter that
> injects it.
> * Dependencies between modules will effectively live in two places: in gradle
> build files and in module-info files. And they can go out of sync, although
> it's probably easy to catch (since javac would complain about missing classes
> during compilation, even if they're in module path).
> * Probably the biggest challenge (not covered in the PoC) are with our custom
> javadoc and ecj linter tasks - they see the module-info.java and can't cope
> with it. At the same time, there is no easy way to exclude that one
> particular file: ecj would have to accept a full set of sources (command
> argument limit will be a problem), javac can accept a full set of java
> sources (external file) but then it doesn't copy doc-files properly anymore
> (this is probably easier to fix).
> * There are differences at runtime that are hard to anticipate - for example
> resource lookups via class loader no longer work (I fixed this in Luke).
> After poking a bit and trying it out I have to say I have mixed feelings
> about moving to the JMS. On the one hand, many things are great - the module
> path, module descriptors and access modes. On the other hand, the tooling
> tricks required to make it all work make you shiver.
> If anybody wants to play/ improve things on that experimental branch (I
> converted Luke to a full module - it works), please be my guest. I have to
> sit on this and think whether it's something I really like or not.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
