On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:37:41 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Are you proposing any text or guidelines to be added to JEP 201 as part of >> this? >> >> I think the location of jdwp.spec and its location in the build tree may >> need to be looked at again. It was convenient to have it in the make tree, >> from which the protocol spec, and source code for the front end (module >> jdk.jdi) and a header file for the back end (module jdk.jdwp.agent) are >> created. Given that the JDWP protocol is standard (not JDK-specific) then >> there may be an argument to put it in src/java.se instead of a JDK-specific >> module. > > @AlanBateman Well, I don't know about updating JEP 201. Do you mean that > `data` should be added to the list `classes`, `native`, `conf`, `legal` as > presented under the heading "New scheme"? That list does not seem to have > been kept up to date anyway. A quick glance also shows that we now have at > least `man` and `lib` as well in this place. So either we say there's > precedence for not updating the list, in which case I will do nothing. Or we > should bring JEP 201 up-to-date with current practices, which then of course > should include `data` but also all other new directories that has been added > since JEP 201 was written. > > I really don't care either way, but my personal opinion is that JEP 201 > presented a view on how the plan was to re-organize things, given the > knowledge and state of affairs at that time, but how we keep the source code > organized and structured from there on, is a living, day-to-day engineering > effort that is just hampered by having to update a formal document, that > serves little purpose now that it has been implemented. And I can certainly move jdwp.spec to java.base instead. That's the reason I need input on this: All I know is that is definitely not the responsibility of the Build Group to maintain that document, and I made my best guess at where to place it. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1611
