> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> 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: >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8141338/webrev.jdk9.top.2/index.html> >> jdk9/jdk: >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8141338/webrev.jdk9.top.2/index.html> >> >> For the sake of completeness, the jdk/nashorn changes are here: >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8141338/webrev.jdk9> but they have >> already been reviewed by Hannes and Sundar; only the above two (jdk9 and >> jdk9/jdk) have been modified compared to the original review request. >> >> Sundar was kind enough to verify that JDK9 builds fine with these changes. >> > The jdk repo looks okay (just had to change your link to find it :-)
D’oh. I was doublechecking those links few times and still managed to bungle it… thanks for figuring it out. > > In the top-level repo then you've moved jdk.scripting.nashorn from > PROVIDER_MODULES to MAIN_MODULES. The reason that we've had it in > PROVIDER_MODULES is because we treat it as a service provider module (it > provides an implementation of javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory). 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 particulars of the use of these *_MODULES variables) it seems to me Mandy’s suggestion is correct to reclassify Nashorn into a MAIN module. Attila. > > -Alan. >
