[9] RFR(S): 8066433: Copy Whitebox testlibrary to top level repository

[Tobias Hartmann]

Sorry, I sent the wrong webrev link for the top level repository:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8066433/webrev.03/

Tobias

On 10.12.2014 11:52, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm fine with postponing the renaming. I'll file a RFE for this after the change
> is in. Here are the new webrevs for moving only:
> 
> Top level repo:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8066433/webrev.02/
> 
> Hotspot repo:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8066433_hotspot/webrev.01/
> 
> If there are no objections I would like to push the change soon.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tobias
> 
> On 09.12.2014 20:04, Stefan Särne wrote:
>>
>> Make sense.
>>
>> I am ok with delaying the name change.
>> There is a phase two with the bulk of the job to this anyway.
>> Dmitry, this is where we can have the repo discussion as well.
>>
>> I think there is an interesting part here anyway.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Stefan
>>
>> Igor Ignatyev skrev 2014-12-09 19:19:
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> changing Whitebox package name will cause failures in the tens tests which and
>>> aren't co-located w/ the product.
>>> right now, we have jigsaw m2 integrating into group repos, this also can lead
>>> to some failures. and I'd like not to have these failures mixed up. so I don't
>>> want to have whitebox renamed this and next week.
>>> however I do want to have whitebox available in jdk and hotspot repo this week.
>>>
>>> can we move whitebox to top repo now and do renaming later?
>>>
>>> On 12/09/2014 05:43 PM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I just noticed that if we want to access the Whitebox API in the top level
>>>> repository we also have to adapt the native lookup code in
>>>> src/share/vm/prims/nativeLookup.cpp because it depends on the package name.
>>>>
>>>> I therefore suggest to move the Whitebox API completely and adapt all tests in
>>>> the hotspot repository. Here are the corresponding webrevs:
>>>>
>>>> Top level repo:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8066433/webrev.02/
>>>>
>>>> Hotspot repo:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8066433_hotspot/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>> Tested on JPRT.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tobias
>>>>
>>>> On 09.12.2014 11:00, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9 dec 2014, at 10:56, Stefan Sarne <stefan.sarne at oracle.com
>>>>>> <mailto:stefan.sarne at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014-12-09 10:51, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for the feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 08.12.2014 20:46, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8 dec 2014, at 20:18, mark.reinhold at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2014/12/8 2:19 -0800, stefan.sarne at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:stefan.sarne at oracle.com>:
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This would also be a good place to discuss the structure of the test
>>>>>>>>>> library.
>>>>>>>>> Yes.  The various "testlibrary" directories in different repos are, at
>>>>>>>>> the moment, a bit of a mess and in some cases appear to be redundant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the present root-repo proposal:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   - Why is it named test/testlibrary rather than test/lib, which is
>>>>>>>>>     what's used in the jdk repo?
>>>>>>>> Probably because it’s called test/testlibrary in the hotspot repo :-)
>>>>>>> Yes, do you prefer 'test/lib'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now sounds like a good time to align.   :)
>>>>>> We can update testlibrary in hotspot to the same as well I think (as a second
>>>>>> step).
>>>>>> Let's go with test/lib.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   - Why does the white-box library get its own directory?  Shouldn't
>>>>>>>>>     all test-library classes have the same package root?
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> I agree. I'll remove the whitebox directory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds good, the same package root is better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   - The package name "sun.hotspot" is archaic.  We should figure out a
>>>>>>>>>     proper naming scheme for test-library packages, preferably starting
>>>>>>>>>     with "jdk.”.
>>>>>>>> So jdk.testlibrary.whitebox.* for these? Or jdk.testlib.whitebox?
>>>>>>> Whatever you prefer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we go with test/lib - I think jdk.testlib make sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Tobias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Based on the discussion around microbenchmarks, it may make sense to
>>>>>>>>>> break out the test folder to a separate repo if it starts growing.
>>>>>>>>>> But again, perhaps this is something we can wait for and handle in the
>>>>>>>>>> RFE. The test folder already exists in the top repo.
>>>>>>>>> The jdk/test/lib directory has been around for many years now and only
>>>>>>>>> contains 28 files.  It seems unlikely that the root-repo equivalent will
>>>>>>>>> ever be much larger than that, so a separate repo would be overkill.
>>>>>>>> The corresponding directory in hotspot has 56 files and has expanded quite a
>>>>>>>> bit recently. I expect some growth to continue. Many of these overlap with
>>>>>>>> the files in the jdk directory, however.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Staffan
>>>>>
>>>
>>