| Summary: | Modular project containing binary artefacts | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Christoph Langer <christoph.langer> |
| Component: | Core | Assignee: | JDT-Core-Inbox <jdt-core-inbox> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | christoph.langer, stephan.herrmann |
| Version: | 4.7.3 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Windows 10 | ||
| Whiteboard: | stalebug | ||
|
Description
Christoph Langer
In a modular project dependencies need to be declared in module-info.java, too ("requires").
It sounds like those .class files shouldn't really be handled as a dependency, but as part of the current module - is that what you are trying to achieve?
ok, let's describe this more abstract: I have a package called "package", and I have classes "package.A" and "package.B". Class "package.B" exists only as binary, no source code. Class "package.A" exists as source and references "package.B". In my modular project, I want to create a module that contains "package" (no matter if it is mentioned in module-info...). I want to pack both "package.A" (from the build) and "package.B" (the binary) together. Currently it's not possible to model this with Eclipse JDT - or at least I have not figured out how. @Stephan, to answer your question: Yes :) This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. As such, we're closing this bug. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it and reopen this bug. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie. @Christoph: is this issue resolved via --patch-module? (In reply to Stephan Herrmann from comment #5) > @Christoph: is this issue resolved via --patch-module? Probably not. But I don't follow up on this issue any more (no interest), so for me it's ok to keep it as CLOSED WONTFIX. |