Re: Review request for JDK-8141338: Move jdk.internal.dynalink package to jdk.dynalink

On 23/11/2015 15:27, Attila Szegedi wrote: Folks, I integrated the changes Mandy suggested; please review these (build related) changes: jdk9 top level: jdk9/jdk:

Re: Review request for JDK-8141338: Move jdk.internal.dynalink package to jdk.dynalink

On 23/11/2015 15:43, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: But, in addition to providing service, jdk.scripting.nashorn module also "exports" nashorn specific APIs in jdk.nashorn.api.* packages. Sure, it could go in either but we mostly treat it as a service provider. -Alan.

Re: Review request for JDK-8141338: Move jdk.internal.dynalink package to jdk.dynalink

On 23/11/2015 16:07, Attila Szegedi wrote: : Whichever is the stronger criteria for deciding whether to place it in MAIN or PROVIDER is fine with me. Intuitively “provider” seems like a weaker category (exposes a service provider but doesn’t have its own API), so (without knowing the particul

Re: Review request for JDK-8141338: Move jdk.internal.dynalink package to jdk.dynalink

Folks, I integrated the changes Mandy suggested; please review these (build related) changes: jdk9 top level: jdk9/jdk: For the sake of complete

Re: Review request for JDK-8141338: Move jdk.internal.dynalink package to jdk.dynalink

But, in addition to providing service, jdk.scripting.nashorn module also "exports" nashorn specific APIs in jdk.nashorn.api.* packages. -Sundar On 11/23/2015 9:10 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 23/11/2015 15:27, Attila Szegedi wrote: Folks, I integrated the changes Mandy suggested; please revi

Re: Review request for JDK-8141338: Move jdk.internal.dynalink package to jdk.dynalink

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > > > On 23/11/2015 15:27, Attila Szegedi wrote: >> Folks, >> >> I integrated the changes Mandy suggested; please review these (build >> related) changes: >> jdk9 top level: >>

Re: Review request for JDK-8141338: Move jdk.internal.dynalink package to jdk.dynalink

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > > > On 23/11/2015 15:27, Attila Szegedi wrote: >> Folks, >> >> I integrated the changes Mandy suggested; please review these (build >> related) changes: >> jdk9 top level: >>

Re: Review request for JDK-8141338: Move jdk.internal.dynalink package to jdk.dynalink

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > We need to do a bit of clean-up in Images.gmk to make things clearer as this > MAIN vs. PROVIDER topic has caused confusion on a few cases. If we can keep > the lists separate to the list of modules for the compact profile builds then > t