It's not too late for access control

The crux of this access control discussion is that, up until JDK 9, "public" meant "public". End of story. If you did not want something to be visible, you made it not public. Very simple and very clear. The word "public" literally means "accessible to all" after all; that's why the term was selected in the first place, and it is nearly certain that this was the intent of the thing up to this date. What is being required in the JPMS spec, and, I dare to suggest, what has been generally asked for by the public (and even required by the JDK), is a way to provide an additional capability - the ability to selectively share otherwise unshared code. The existing Java language accessibility model is (of course) well-understood by experts. For new developers, the concepts takes a bit of time to explain but can generally be grasped. In the end the accessibility of a member is generally easily determined by examining the qualifiers of that member. What has been proposed and implemented in Jigsaw is essentially a completely new approach to access checking. Because it is new, and because it is essentially untried, I predicted that issues would arise not unlike the ones being currently discussed. I argue that this approach is not optimal, for at least reasons discussed on this list and in this email, but that even now, it's not too late to change the approach. I propose, once again, that rather than changing the meaning of "public" to something unintuitive (and indeed counter to the definition of the actual word), we instead allow the selective extension of package-private. Users would make public any type or member which is *meant* to be public, i.e. accessible by all. Rather than (at best) changing their expectations as to the behavior of "public" only to immediately betray that expectation by forcing them through a backdoor in order to meet practical needs, we ensure that their expectations remain: public members are public, and things that are secret are not public. Conceptually (and, hopefully, technically) this should not be too far away from where we've arrived at now in Jigsaw, at least as far as the package inventory is shared between modules for the purpose of access control. Can anyone think of any good reason we should *not* do this, or ways that this would be substantially weaker than restricting public? -- - DML