On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 20:32:05 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I thought it was a consistent and clear naming scheme. :-) But I guess to
>> each their own...
>>
>> Would `classloader-modules.conf`, `docs-modules.conf` and
>> `build-modules.con` be better? Otherwise you'll need to come up with any
>> better solutions yourself, since I'm starting to run out of ideas.
>
> As for `JRE_TOOL_MODULES`, I understand what you mean but it is at least kind
> of a "sibling" to the others. After all, we use these sets of modules
> together to form the set of modules for the JRE:
>
> JRE_MODULES += $(filter $(ALL_MODULES), $(BOOT_MODULES) \
> $(PLATFORM_MODULES) $(JRE_TOOL_MODULES))
>
> So given that `BOOT_MODULES` and `PLATFORM_MODULE` has a role to play here as
> well, I think it would be odd *not* to have `JRE_TOOL_MODULES` defined at the
> same place.
`JRE_TOOL_MODULES` started with more than one modules in JDK 9:
JRE_TOOL_MODULES += \
jdk.jdwp.agent \
jdk.pack \
jdk.scripting.nashorn.shell \
#
Since only `jdk.jdwp.agent` one module is left for `JRE_TOOL_MODULES`, as you
are refactoring this file, I suggest to get rid of `JRE_TOOL_MODULES` and
explicitly name `jdk.jdwp.agent` in `JRE_MODULES`.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1781
