I guess you are right. I wasn't sure if it is a good idea to include a name for a module in my descriptor for a dependency which is actually not named (automatic) and release with such descriptor. But given this dependency is fixed version, it will not get any other name than I am referencing and it is more convenient for users than to additionally decide where to put and how to reference it.
Thank you. Roman On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Robert Scholte <[email protected]> wrote: > But that means that the dependency is actually required at runtime. > > Looks to me there are 2 options: > - make that dependency a requirement > - restructure your code so it can be a static requirement > > One of the benefits I do like about the modularization is that it forces > you to do clean coding. It is a new way of thinking and it looks like your > project has potential to be optimized for that. > > thanks, > Robert > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:19:34 +0200, Roman Grigoriadi < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Robert, >> >> I don't think my case is suitable for requires static / optional. Runtime >> will fail with ClassNotFound exception if classes are neither on CP or MP. >> >> >> Roman >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Martin Desruisseaux < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello Robert >>> >>> Le 11/04/2018 à 18:45, Robert Scholte a écrit : >>> >>> > I am not aware of such problem. Did you create a Jira[1] issue for it? >>> > >>> Done: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MCOMPILER-336 >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
