Adding the linker.support package is probably the correct thing to do.
But it creates two similiarly named packages and a deeper and bigger
package structure. My approach would have been to keep the package
structure simple, but if most people agree it's better this way I won't
stand in the way.
Hannes
Am 2015-10-16 um 16:04 schrieb Attila Szegedi:
Please review JDK-8139761 "Improve Dynalink class nomenclature and package organization" at
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8139761/webrev.jdk9> for
<https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8139761>
Thanks,
Attila.
