Steps towards integrating Kulla into JDK9

[Robert Field]

Oops, yes.  Better eyes than mine, the commas should be dots.




On April 24, 2015 2:46:06 AM Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> This looks good to me (assuming the commas in the tables are supposed to
> be dots?)
>
> On 4/23/2015 5:48 PM, Robert Field wrote:
> > Ah, so we want a green bikeshed ;-)
> >
> > Where does this put naming?  How about this?
> >
> > Module
> > 	jdk.jshell
> > Tool launcher
> > 	jshell
> > API Package
> > 	jdk.jshell
> > Implementation Package
> > 	jdk.internal.jshell,impl
> > Remote Package
> > 	jdk.internal.jshell,impl.remote
> > Tool Package
> > 	jdk.internal.jshell,tool
> >
> >
> > Please can we have a full round of yea or nay -- we don't want to go
> > around on this any more.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robert
> >
> > P.S. While I'm worried about skewing perceptions and conceptually
> > muddying the image of
> > the API (particularly for IDE vendors who we hope to enlist to use the
> > API), I have to
> > agree with Maurizio, Mark, and Brian that "eval" or any variation
> > thereon is very vague.
> > Plus the API's target audience is small, smart, and easily educated.  A
> > single unique
> > "brand" works better than two.  So, no bikeshedding from me.
> >
> >
> > On 04/23/15 13:59, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> >> 2015/4/23 1:51 -0700,brian.goetz at oracle.com:
> >>> I guess we've got us a bikeshed :)
> >>>
> >>>> As to the name of the package, that depends where the center is.  For
> >>>> someone wanting to look at how the tool is implemented jdk.jshell would
> >>>> be right. For an IDE using the evaluation API, jdk.eval or something
> >>>> like that would be appropriate. I think eval applies to both, but jshell
> >>>> only applies to the tool.
> >>> While this argument would surely hold up in court, I think the notion of
> >>> "tool backed by a library" is one that is entirely understandable to
> >>> people, and "jdk.jshell" is much more evocative of what it does than
> >>> "jdk.eval".  I worry that we're sacrificing usability for correctness in
> >>> this choice of name.  We want people to be able to look at the module
> >>> names in the module graph and be able to have an idea of what it does.
> >> I agree.  "jdk.jshell" is a better name for the module, and for the
> >> packages that it exports.  "eval" is just way too generic, and "repl"
> >> is a somewhat specialized term (not to us, but to the 9 million).
> >>
> >> - Mark
> >