Review request for JDK-8141338: Move jdk.internal.dynalink package to jdk.dynalink

[Alan Bateman]

On 23/11/2015 16:07, Attila Szegedi wrote:
> :
> 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.
>
We need to do a bit of clean-up in Images.gmk to make things clearer as 
this MAIN vs. PROVIDER topic has caused confusion on a few cases. If we 
can keep the lists separate to the list of modules for the compact 
profile builds then there is no reason why they can't be combined as 
JRE_MODULES.

In this case then jdk.scripting.nashorn.shell is already listed in 
MAIN_MODULES so this will ensure than Nashorn is linked into any 
run-time image that has the the jjs tool/shell. It doesn't matter if 
jdk.scripting.nashorn is listed or not.

-Alan.