Restricted method warning with JDK 24+

[lispyclouds]

I'm seeing this warning when running on JDK 24+ which is most likely from the dependency we have:

WARNING: A restricted method in java.lang.System has been called
WARNING: java.lang.System::loadLibrary has been called by org.newsclub.net.unix.NativeLibraryLoader$StandardLibraryCandidate in an unnamed module (file:/home/lispyclouds/.m2/repository/com/kohlschutter/junixsocket/junixsocket-common/2.8.1/junixsocket-common-2.8.1.jar)
WARNING: Use --enable-native-access=ALL-UNNAMED to avoid a warning for callers in this module
WARNING: Restricted methods will be blocked in a future release unless native access is enabled

should the dep be updated or the users should be adding in that flag (doesn't seem to be a good idea)? not sure how soon would this stop working.

[lispyclouds]

Still seeing this warning with the latest

com.kohlschutter.junixsocket/junixsocket-common {:mvn/version "2.10.1"}
com.kohlschutter.junixsocket/junixsocket-native-common {:mvn/version "2.10.1"}

[xsc]

Thanks for raising this! It seems like it's indeed desired for users of native code to explicitly opt-in: https://openjdk.org/jeps/472 We should still update the library, though.

…

On May 25, 2025 8:31:17 PM GMT+02:00, "Rahuλ Dé" ***@***.***> wrote: lispyclouds created an issue (into-docker/unixsocket-http#23) I'm seeing this warning when running on JDK 24+ which is most likely from the dependency we have: ``` WARNING: A restricted method in java.lang.System has been called WARNING: java.lang.System::loadLibrary has been called by org.newsclub.net.unix.NativeLibraryLoader$StandardLibraryCandidate in an unnamed module (file:/home/lispyclouds/.m2/repository/com/kohlschutter/junixsocket/junixsocket-common/2.8.1/junixsocket-common-2.8.1.jar) WARNING: Use --enable-native-access=ALL-UNNAMED to avoid a warning for callers in this module WARNING: Restricted methods will be blocked in a future release unless native access is enabled ``` should the dep be updated or the users should be adding in that flag (doesn't seem to be a good idea)? not sure how soon would this stop working. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #23 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ***@***.***>