Mark Hindess wrote: > I suppose we could manage without changing package names. Initially I > did it because I wondered if I might end up having a top-level build of > all the classes much like we do in classlib and it made this slightly > cleaner. But I hope there is a better way to handle the simpler > dependencies (common classes needed by both jretools and jdktools). > > Now I've committed the split changing the names (again/back) would be > trivial but I'd like to resolve the following issue first. > > We need to decide is if we should have two or three tools jars. (We > could have one and include the jdktools classes in the jre but I don't > really like that idea.) > > Do we make the jdktools jar depend on the jretools jar to resolve > the common classes or do we have a separate common tools jar which > both jdktools or jretools jars depend upon? I was thinking of going > with just two. (We could have two with no dependencies and keep the > duplicate classes but I don't like this idea either.)
Just two JARs for me. The JDK depends upon the JRE in so many other ways, that this seems quite natural in tools too. Regards, Tim
