On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:58:47 GMT, Mandy Chung <mch...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> `JRE_TOOL_MODULES` started with more than one modules in JDK 9: >> >> JRE_TOOL_MODULES += \ >> jdk.jdwp.agent \ >> jdk.pack \ >> jdk.scripting.nashorn.shell \ >> # >> >> Since only `jdk.jdwp.agent` one module is left for `JRE_TOOL_MODULES`, as >> you are refactoring this file, I suggest to get rid of `JRE_TOOL_MODULES` >> and explicitly name `jdk.jdwp.agent` in `JRE_MODULES`. > > Do you see a way to get rid of `DOCS_MODULES` but determine this set at build > time? IIRC it was added for expediency for > [JDK-8172312](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172312). This is > the set of Java SE + JDK modules that excludes `jdk.internal.*` modules and > `jdk.unsupported` and also platform-specific modules. (History: the docs > bundle generated prior to JDK 9 only included platform-neutral APIs.) > > As for the conf file for module to class loader mapping, I actually like one > single file `jdk-modules.conf` to enumerate all JDK modules. Currently it > only defines the list of modules defined to boot and platform class loader > but excludes any modules defined to application class loaders. I consider to > enumerate all modules in this file and the build can verify if any module is > missing. > > `module-sets-build.conf` is a bit awkward and I will give more thought on > naming ideas. Can any of `INTERIM_IMAGE_MODULES` , `HOTSPOT_MODULES` and `LANGTOOLS_MODULES` be inlined in the appropriate .gmk file? `INTERIM_IMAGE_MODULES` is for building interim image. If it has to be defined in a conf file, I like its name be explicit and match the target or makefile, for example, `interim-images.conf` or `InterimImages.conf`. This way I can tell what this conf file intends for. What do you think? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1781
