Updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8171418/webrev.01
> On Dec 19, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fu...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mandy,
>
> DepsAnalyzer.java:
>
> 232 Collection<Module> modules = configuration.getModules().values();
>
> I don't see where modules is used in this method.
> Should this line be removed?
>
Removed. Lance also caught that.
>
> 163 if (filter.requiresFilter().isEmpty()) {
> 164 return archives.stream()
> 165 .filter(this::include)
> ...
> 168 } else {
> 169 // use the archives that have dependences and not specified
> in --require
> 170 return archives.stream()
> 171 .filter(source ->
> !filter.requiresFilter().contains(source.getName()))
> 172 .filter(this::include)
> ...
>
> and later:
>
> 266 public boolean include(Archive source) {
> 267 Module module = source.getModule();
> 268 // skip system module by default
> 269 return !module.isSystem()
> 270 || configuration.rootModules().contains(source)
> 271 || filter.requiresFilter().contains(module.name());
> 272 }
>
>
> If I look at how JdepsFilter::includes was implemented, and given that
> filter.requiresFilter().contains(module.name()) will always be false
> if we come from line 165, or from line 172 then I would suggest to
> remove line 271: this would ensure that the call at line 95 does
> the same than before.
>
That’s a good suggestion.
Mandy
>
> On 19/12/16 05:42, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Webrev at:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8171418/webrev.00
>>
>> --include-system-modules option was a temporary option added in an early
>> stage of developement. Time to remove it as a clean up.
>>
>> Mandy
>>
>
