So you're basically saying to allow nested classes to be accessible with "." as well as "::", yes?

yy, since JRuby allows java.awt.Desktop where by Ruby semantics it "should" be java.awt::Desktop
... and we also handle nested upper-case package names right basePackage.UglyPackageName.Klass

I'm just not sure if there aren't any draw-backs for introducing fully Java "like" nested class access ?

Hello Guys!! I want to work on this particular issue. Any pointers as in can I maven build the jruby java code?

@rohitdumbre86 hey! believe some of those can be figured out - it's quite a std mvn build.
... check .travis-ci.yml or there's also https://github.com/jruby/jruby/blob/master/BUILDING.md

if you need to better understand JRuby's Java Integration - look for commits tagged with [ji] prefix

I prepared solution, although I am not 100% it's the best one.
I'm handling inner class case from within method_missing. Please review.

@headius / @kares I think this one could be closed as well. Could you please check it? thx

@edipofederle It seems like we eventually decided that using method_missing to solve this was too heavy-handed, at least based on #5924, so this behavior has never been added. I am still of the opinion that inner classes are best accessed using Foo::Bar syntax, but it should be possible to make Foo.Bar work without method_missing (the list of inner classes is static and known at load time).

So... we can close this if @kares no longer wants to support Foo.Bar, but should leave it open otherwise.