RFR: JDK-8212780: JEP 343: Packaging Tool Implementation
andy.herrick at oracle.com
Wed Nov 14 14:52:36 UTC 2018
On 11/13/2018 5:50 PM, Philip Race wrote:
> On 11/13/18, 12:52 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> There are enough files unique to each platform to put them in
>> separate packages
>> otherwise you get too many (IMHO) files in a single package/directory
>> its harder to tell which go with which. There isn't much of a
>> problem with
>> classes being public because they are all in a module and not exported.
>> I would put them all under share/classes/jdk/jpackagers/internal/<OS>
>> save a directory level.
> That isn't how the rest of the JDK is organised.
> Platform specific classes are split where you have "share" in the path
> So whilst the other issues are more arguable I don't think the build team
> would like platform specific classes under share. There is already an
> objection to that for the native files.
> To the "too many files in one package/directory" point.
> I think that might happen at the directory level if Andy went through
> his suggestion but I don't think it will happen with what I proposed and
> we probably should get some benefit from being able to make classes +
> package private.
but my proposal only increases the number of files in each directory as
share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal - from 28 to 31
windows/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal - from 6 to 7
macosx/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal - from 6 to 7
linux/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal - from 3 to 4
(adding Main.java, that makes are only 50 source files total)
so I hardly see any any impact of having "too many files in one
and for Phil's part of the change, although the platform dependent
source files would be in the same package as the platform independent
files, they are still in a different source dir, and every platform
specific source file's name starts with the platform ("Win", "Mac", or
finally a question about resources:
Each source file that references resources has it's own resource file
(23 resource files in each of 3 languages for a total of 69 properties
That seems like overkill to me. One result is duplicate resources
whenever a key is referenced in more than one source file.
Wouldn't it simplify things to combine these into a smaller set of
resource files ?
> So I think what I proposed is about right ..
>> $.02, Roger
>> On 11/13/2018 03:46 PM, Andy Herrick wrote:
>>> I agree with this and would take it further.
>>> 1 file is in ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders - why
>>> not just ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
>>> 2 files are in ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/bundlers - why
>>> not just in ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
>>> 1 file is in ./linux/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders/linux -
>>> why not just ./linux/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
>>> 1 file is in ./macosx/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders/mac -
>>> why not just ./macosx/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
>>> 1 file is in
>>> ./windows/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders/windows - why not
>>> just ./windows/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
>>> then just move the associated resources -
>>> Basically put everything except Main in same package - everything
>>> would be easier to find, and we could make almost all methods
>>> package-private (the only exception would be the few things called
>>> by Main, and the ToolProvider.
>>> On 11/13/2018 2:54 PM, Phil Race wrote:
>>>> Question .. why is "mac", "linux" and "windows" necessary in the
>>>> package name here ?
>>>> There's not likely to be a clash, so is there some other reason not
>>>> to want these
>>>> in the same package as the shared internals like
More information about the core-libs-dev