[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJLINK-27?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16710570#comment-16710570
]
Gili commented on MJLINK-27:
----------------------------
[~rfscholte] I'll see what I can do about that test project. In the meantime,
take a look atÂ
[https://github.com/apache/maven-plugins/blob/bfa65c310d7f16671db672773f73fd64f05edfd0/maven-jlink-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/jlink/JLinkMojo.java#L327]
That code assumes that two modules won't share the same name, which we now know
is incorrect. I would start by fixing that.
> 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)
