Bug 525918 - [9] compile error when the service provider is an interface
Summary: [9] compile error when the service provider is an interface
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 4.8   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows 7
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 4.8 M4   Edit
Assignee: Sasikanth Bharadwaj CLA
QA Contact: Sasikanth Bharadwaj CLA
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2017-10-12 07:24 EDT by Kalyan Prasad Tatavarthi CLA
Modified: 2017-12-04 06:18 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Kalyan Prasad Tatavarthi CLA 2017-10-12 07:24:56 EDT 
Create a Java9 project
1) In the module-info.java file add

module test {
        requires java.sql;
	provides java.sql.Driver with myDriver;
}

There is an error reported on myDriver as it is not present.

2) create an interface myDriver which extends java.sql.Driver

A new error "Invalid service implementation, the type kpDriver is abstract" is reported on myDriver in module-info.java file.

As service provider can be an interface, this should not be an error.
Comment 1 Stephan Herrmann CLA 2017-10-12 08:11:23 EDT 
@Sasi, you have all the checks re provider methods in place. AFAICS, IProblem.AbstractServiceImplementation should only ever be raised, when no provider method, but only a provider constructor is present.
Surprisingly, I cannot even find that in JLS (no mention of abstract classes), so we should probably double check with javac / Oracle.
Comment 2 Sasikanth Bharadwaj CLA 2017-10-24 05:04:46 EDT 
I will check
Comment 3 Sasikanth Bharadwaj CLA 2017-10-30 05:09:38 EDT 
Same behavior as javac 9.0.1. And no mention of abstract classes in JLS as Stephan said, although I remember seeing this in the lang-vm.html that was used as the stand in spec. Probably good to file a bug against javac and see what they have to say.
Comment 4 Stephan Herrmann CLA 2017-10-31 09:30:56 EDT 
(In reply to Sasikanth Bharadwaj from comment #3)
> Same behavior as javac 9.0.1.

Can you be more specific on this? How does javac handle 
- abstract provider class?
- provider interface?
with details:
- if it has a public constructor but no provider method?
- if it has a provider method?
Comment 5 Sasikanth Bharadwaj CLA 2017-11-02 02:18:29 EDT 
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to Sasikanth Bharadwaj from comment #3)
> > Same behavior as javac 9.0.1.
> 
> Can you be more specific on this? How does javac handle
> - abstract provider class?
> - provider interface?
> with details:
> - if it has a public constructor but no provider method?
> - if it has a provider method?
Presence of a provider method does not trigger an error, whether the provider is an abstract class or interface, but having just the provider constructor triggers the error even if the provider is a subtype of the service interface. We need to adjust our behavior to accommodate the presence of the provider method but the other case I believe would stay an error and needs a spec update.
Comment 6 Eclipse Genie CLA 2017-11-07 04:35:23 EST 
New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/111103
Comment 7 Sasikanth Bharadwaj CLA 2017-11-09 06:32:23 EST 
Released to master via http://git.eclipse.org/c/jdt/eclipse.jdt.core.git/commit/?id=e60b3b2bd58993c93d460964babb98cd3ffd52da. We don't complain about abstract providers when provider method is present. I left the other case as is. Can be updated when we have new information
Comment 8 Manoj N Palat CLA 2017-12-04 06:18:20 EST 
Verified for Eclipse Photon 4.8 M4 with Build id: I20171130-2100