jdk/src/solaris - time to re-visit it?

[Phil Race]

Flat vs Hierarchical is OK. its needless proliferation I was objecting to.

If "ifdef capability" can be used I have no issues with that either.

I suggested maintaining the name as src/solaris partly because I don't 
believe in churn
and am not sure what would make a better name other than src/unix .. 
would that be OK ?
You could create src/sunos for the really sunos parts ..
Keeping the name the same also makes applying backport patches much easier.
Well, that and of course my fingers know it very well.

-phil.

On 11/29/2011 2:00 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 29/11/2011 19:34, Phil Race wrote:
>> :
>>
>> * 95%+ of the code will be the same across solaris/linux/etc
>>   And remember this includes all the X11 code.
>> * Of the remaining 5%, most of it is best dealt with via ifdef
>>   because its a few line delta in a large file.
>>   I'd guess 2% of the code might merit a separate source file.
>>
>> So whilst these may exist in ports that doesn't mean they should all 
>> exist
>> in mainline. I suggest to keep src/solaris (for historical reasons) as
>> meaing "src shared across the unix/X11 family" and others in mainline
>> only for the core supported platforms, which will add macosx in JDK 8,
>> largely because of client code differences
>>
>> Ports would add their own platform dir if they need to, or add ifdefs 
>> in src/solaris
>> if that's easier.
> I'm not so sure about keeping src/solaris as "src shared across the 
> unix/X11 family", I'd prefer it be renamed to something that doesn't 
> have "solaris" or "sunos" in the name. The reason is that keeping 
> solaris in the name means there isn't an obvious location for Solaris 
> specific files. If they stay in src/solaris then it means this tree 
> requires pre-processing or filtering in the build. We do this today in 
> several places with no consistency and it would be nice to get rid of 
> this.
>
> In any case, keeping the directory structure flat as Fredrick 
> suggested make sense to me. Whether we will actually or refactor to 
> the point where we need sysv, gnu, etc. directories isn't clear to me. 
> I think we would be doing well to replace most of the ifdef 
> __solaris__ and ifdef __linux__ usages with ifdef <capability>.
>
> -Alan.