On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 15:08 -0800, Phil Race wrote: > Flat vs Hierarchical is OK. its needless proliferation I was objecting to. > > If "ifdef capability" can be used I have no issues with that either. > > I suggested maintaining the name as src/solaris partly because I don't > believe in churn > and am not sure what would make a better name other than src/unix .. > would that be OK ?
+1 for src/unix > You could create src/sunos for the really sunos parts .. > Keeping the name the same also makes applying backport patches much easier. > Well, that and of course my fingers know it very well. > -phil. > > On 11/29/2011 2:00 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 29/11/2011 19:34, Phil Race wrote: > >> : > >> > >> * 95%+ of the code will be the same across solaris/linux/etc > >> And remember this includes all the X11 code. > >> * Of the remaining 5%, most of it is best dealt with via ifdef > >> because its a few line delta in a large file. > >> I'd guess 2% of the code might merit a separate source file. > >> > >> So whilst these may exist in ports that doesn't mean they should all > >> exist > >> in mainline. I suggest to keep src/solaris (for historical reasons) as > >> meaing "src shared across the unix/X11 family" and others in mainline > >> only for the core supported platforms, which will add macosx in JDK 8, > >> largely because of client code differences > >> > >> Ports would add their own platform dir if they need to, or add ifdefs > >> in src/solaris > >> if that's easier. > > I'm not so sure about keeping src/solaris as "src shared across the > > unix/X11 family", I'd prefer it be renamed to something that doesn't > > have "solaris" or "sunos" in the name. The reason is that keeping > > solaris in the name means there isn't an obvious location for Solaris > > specific files. If they stay in src/solaris then it means this tree > > requires pre-processing or filtering in the build. We do this today in > > several places with no consistency and it would be nice to get rid of > > this. > > > > In any case, keeping the directory structure flat as Fredrick > > suggested make sense to me. Whether we will actually or refactor to > > the point where we need sysv, gnu, etc. directories isn't clear to me. > > I think we would be doing well to replace most of the ifdef > > __solaris__ and ifdef __linux__ usages with ifdef <capability>. > > > > -Alan. >
