On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:44:35 GMT, Phil Race <p...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> @prrace I will need your assistance in confirming that my understanding >> about the AWT vs 2D split is correct. In particular, `libosxui` gave me some >> headache, but after trying to dig into the code my understanding ended up >> being that this is part of Swing which is considered part of AWT, not 2D. >> >> I also looked at `libosx` and `libosxapp` which are located in the general >> `Lib.gmk` file. I could not easily see that they should have been placed in >> either 2d or Awt, so my assumption is that they are correctly placed outside >> these two new files. > >> @prrace I will need your assistance in confirming that my understanding >> about the AWT vs 2D split is correct. In particular, `libosxui` gave me some >> headache, but after trying to dig into the code my understanding ended up >> being that this is part of Swing which is considered part of AWT, not 2D. >> >> I also looked at `libosx` and `libosxapp` which are located in the general >> `Lib.gmk` file. I could not easily see that they should have been placed in >> either 2d or Awt, so my assumption is that they are correctly placed outside >> these two new files. > > Swing isn't part of AWT. They are separate entities. > Swing is built on top of 2D as much as it is built on top of AWT. > > Any hope of finding a neat dividing line will be arbitrary and not really > reflecting reality > > And in some ways AWT is more closely tied to AWT than 2D is. > > And things are not the same across platforms either. > You've determined splashscreen is 2D functionality which it most certainly is > not. > > Awtlibraries is setting up the shaders which for the Metal rendering pipeline > which is 100% 2D. > > And it seems to be building OpenGL, etc as well .. > > and generally I see so manay references to 2D in the AWT file and vice versa. > > it isn't even true that "libawt" is awt. Libawt is mostly a misnomer, in one > case more than mostly. It ought to be called "lib2d" > > So I think this change will just cause confusion and doesn't seem right to > me. It ought to "not happen". @prrace I tried implementing my suggestion: making the split based purely on having "awt" in the library name. I also clearly documented that the reason for the split do not imply anything about the source code. Would this be okay to you? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18743#issuecomment-2058714191
