Review request for JDK-8141338: Move jdk.internal.dynalink package to jdk.dynalink
Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Mon Nov 23 16:42:59 UTC 2015
On 23/11/2015 16:07, Attila Szegedi wrote:
> Whichever is the stronger criteria for deciding whether to place it in MAIN or PROVIDER is fine with me. Intuitively “provider” seems like a weaker category (exposes a service provider but doesn’t have its own API), so (without knowing the particulars of the use of these *_MODULES variables) it seems to me Mandy’s suggestion is correct to reclassify Nashorn into a MAIN module.
We need to do a bit of clean-up in Images.gmk to make things clearer as
this MAIN vs. PROVIDER topic has caused confusion on a few cases. If we
can keep the lists separate to the list of modules for the compact
profile builds then there is no reason why they can't be combined as
In this case then jdk.scripting.nashorn.shell is already listed in
MAIN_MODULES so this will ensure than Nashorn is linked into any
run-time image that has the the jjs tool/shell. It doesn't matter if
jdk.scripting.nashorn is listed or not.
More information about the core-libs-dev