RFR: 8330107: Separate out "awt" libraries from Awt2dLibraries.gmk

[Magnus Ihse Bursie]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:44:35 GMT, Phil Race <prr at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> @prrace I will need your assistance in confirming that my understanding about the AWT vs 2D split is correct. In particular, `libosxui` gave me some headache, but after trying to dig into the code my understanding ended up being that this is part of Swing which is considered part of AWT, not 2D.
>> 
>> I also looked at `libosx` and `libosxapp` which are located in the general `Lib.gmk` file. I could not easily see that they should have been placed in either 2d or Awt, so my assumption is that they are correctly placed outside these two new files.
>
>> @prrace I will need your assistance in confirming that my understanding about the AWT vs 2D split is correct. In particular, `libosxui` gave me some headache, but after trying to dig into the code my understanding ended up being that this is part of Swing which is considered part of AWT, not 2D.
>> 
>> I also looked at `libosx` and `libosxapp` which are located in the general `Lib.gmk` file. I could not easily see that they should have been placed in either 2d or Awt, so my assumption is that they are correctly placed outside these two new files.
> 
> Swing isn't part of AWT. They are separate entities.
> Swing is built on top of 2D as much as it is built on top of AWT.
> 
> Any hope of finding a neat dividing line will be arbitrary and not really reflecting reality
> 
> And in some ways AWT is more closely tied to AWT than 2D is.
> 
> And things are not the same across platforms either.
> You've determined splashscreen is 2D functionality which it most certainly is not.
> 
> Awtlibraries is setting up the shaders which for the Metal rendering pipeline which is 100% 2D.
> 
> And it seems to be building OpenGL, etc as well ..
> 
> and generally I see so manay references to 2D in the AWT file and vice versa.
> 
> it isn't even true that "libawt" is awt. Libawt  is mostly a misnomer, in one case more than mostly. It ought to be called "lib2d"
> 
> So I think this change will just cause confusion and doesn't seem right to me. It ought to "not happen".

@prrace I tried implementing my suggestion: making the split based purely on having "awt" in the library name. I also clearly documented that the reason for the split do not imply anything about the source code. Would this be okay to you?

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18743#issuecomment-2058714191