[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJLINK-27?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16710097#comment-16710097
 ] 

Gili commented on MJLINK-27:
----------------------------

I asked Alan Bateman for clarification and [he 
wrote|http://jigsaw-dev.1059479.n5.nabble.com/Clarification-needed-regarding-modulepath-containing-multiple-modules-with-the-same-name-tp5718248p5718251.html]:
{quote}if you've got say two directories on the module path and they 
 both contain module M then M will be found in the first directory, the M 
 in the second directory will be ignored. 

The linked comment about it being an error to have a directory on the 
 module path containing multiple versions of the same module is also correct.
{quote}
So this plugin's behavior is incorrect.

> Code incorrectly assumes that two modules won't have the same name
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MJLINK-27
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJLINK-27
>             Project: Maven JLink Plugin
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.0-alpha-2
>            Reporter: Gili
>            Priority: Major
>
> Karl Heinz Marbaise closed MJLINK-7 referencing [a Stackoverflow 
> post|https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46573572/java-9-possible-to-have-2-modules-with-same-name-on-module-path/46574200#46574200]
>  to prove that module names must be unique. In fact, this Stackoverflow post 
> says the exact opposite. The bottom half of the post states that modules in 
> separate directories **are** allowed to have the same name. The bottom of the 
> post concludes:
> {quote}That makes it possible to have the same module in different 
> directories.
> {quote}
> It doesn't have to be the same module per-se. It is possible for two 
> different implementations with the same module name to reside on the module 
> path, so long as the modules reside in different directory. This is useful 
> for "class shadowing". In my particular case, I ship a no-op implementation 
> of a module by default but users can insert a working implementation in front 
> of the module path to enable the feature.
> Please reopen this issue or continue its work here.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to