Thanks. I'm going ahead with updated webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8165595/webrev.02/
Only change is the whitespace removal as suggested. Thanks, -Sundar On 9/7/2016 6:18 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote: > Hello, > > I cannot think of a more suitable place to put this right now. So far > we have not had a need for module specific configuration for jmod > creation. If this need grows, we might need to think of something. > (sort of related, I have been thinking of ways to move all the java > compilation details in CompileJavaModules.gmk to module specific files > as well) > > I'm happy with the patch as long as you reduce the indentation to 2 > spaces which we use for logical indents in the build system files. See > http://openjdk.java.net/groups/build/doc/code-conventions.html for > details. > > /Erik > > On 2016-09-07 14:38, Alan Bateman wrote: >> On 07/09/2016 13:27, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: >> >>> jjs does not yet support module related options. So, user modules can >>> not be scripted directly with jjs as of now. Only way is to use to >>> launcher with -mp along with -m for jjs main class. With the change, >>> only module name needs to be specified. >>> >>> Also, jjs tool is not shipped for embedded platforms (compact1). But, >>> jdk.nashorn.tools.Shell (used to be the jjs main in jdk8u) is compact1 >>> compliant. So user can use >>> >>> java -m jdk.scripting.nashorn >>> >>> on embedded platforms [and use functionality reduced jjs there] >>> >>> Yes, I tried to see if I can get it per-module config from somewhere - >>> but couldn't. I'm open to suggestions on how to do that in the current >>> scheme. >> Is there an issue tracking the update to `jjs`? >> >> Also I think you should wait to hear from Erik as to where to put >> this in the build. The concern with CreateJMods.gmk is that isn't not >> going to scale once we eventually get to sorting out the issues with >> modules that have entry points. >> >> -Alan >
