On 11/13/18, 12:52 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi,
There are enough files unique to each platform to put them in separate
packages
otherwise you get too many (IMHO) files in a single package/directory and
its harder to tell which go with which. There isn't much of a problem
with
classes being public because they are all in a module and not exported.
I would put them all under share/classes/jdk/jpackagers/internal/<OS> and
save a directory level.
That isn't how the rest of the JDK is organised.
Platform specific classes are split where you have "share" in the path
above.
So whilst the other issues are more arguable I don't think the build team
would like platform specific classes under share. There is already an
objection to that for the native files.
To the "too many files in one package/directory" point.
I think that might happen at the directory level if Andy went through with
his suggestion but I don't think it will happen with what I proposed and
we probably should get some benefit from being able to make classes +
methods
package private.
So I think what I proposed is about right ..
phil
$.02, Roger
On 11/13/2018 03:46 PM, Andy Herrick wrote:
I agree with this and would take it further.
1 file is in ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders - why
not just ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
2 files are in ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/bundlers - why
not just in ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
1 file is in ./linux/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders/linux -
why not just ./linux/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
1 file is in ./macosx/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders/mac -
why not just ./macosx/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
1 file is in
./windows/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders/windows - why not
just ./windows/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
then just move the associated resources -
Basically put everything except Main in same package - everything
would be easier to find, and we could make almost all methods
package-private (the only exception would be the few things called by
Main, and the ToolProvider.
On 11/13/2018 2:54 PM, Phil Race wrote:
Question .. why is "mac", "linux" and "windows" necessary in the
package name here ?
src/jdk.jpackager/macosx/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/mac/MacAppBundler.java
src/jdk.jpackager/windows/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders/windows/WindowsAppImageBuilder.java
src/jdk.jpackager/linux/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/linux/LinuxRpmBundler.java
There's not likely to be a clash, so is there some other reason not
to want these
in the same package as the shared internals like
src/jdk.jpackager/share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/Param.java
?
-phil.
I agree with this and would take it further.
1 file is in ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders - why
not just ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
2 files are in ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/bundlers - why
not just in ./share/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
1 file is in ./linux/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders/linux -
why not just ./linux/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
1 file is in ./macosx/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders/mac -
why not just ./macosx/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
1 file is in
./windows/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal/builders/windows - why not
just ./windows/classes/jdk/jpackager/internal
then just move the associated resources -
Basically put everything except Main in same package - everything
would be easier to find, and we could make almost all methods
package-private (the only exception would be the few things called by
Main, and the ToolProvider.
/Andy
