Review request for JDK-8139761: Improve Dynalink class nomenclature and package organization

[Attila Szegedi]

so, is that a +1? :-)

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:11 PM, Hannes Wallnoefer <hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Fair enough. You know the library best and I trust your judgement. Also, it's not a library built for the casual user, so clean structure may be more important than simplicity.
> 
> Hannes
> 
> Am 2015-10-20 um 16:47 schrieb Attila Szegedi:
>> I structured it this way as I think it adds to the clarity of the API; .linker has classes essential for implementing linkers, and .linker.support contains conveniences. Similarly, .support contains conveniences for using the base package.
>> 
>> Other approaches I could think of:
>> 1. merge .linker.support into .support: I dislike it as I can imagine some languages not needing .linker or .linker.support (e.g. a scripting shell or a language that doesn’t have its own object model but uses JVM object model straight). I don’t want .support to be a multipurpose “util” package.
>> 2. merge .linker.support into .linker: then .linker would look more complicated than it is; right now it only contains the specification essentials
>> 3. instead of .linker.support use .support.linker: same depth of package names, not sure what’s the benefit.
>> 
>> I’d be for keeping the current structure (obviously :-) )
>> 
>> Attila.
>> 
>>> On Oct 20, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Hannes Wallnoefer <hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Adding the linker.support package is probably the correct thing to do. But it creates two similiarly named packages and a  deeper and bigger package structure. My approach would  have been to keep the package structure simple, but if most people agree it's better this way I won't stand in the way.
>>> 
>>> Hannes
>>> 
>>> Am 2015-10-16 um 16:04 schrieb Attila Szegedi:
>>>> Please review JDK-8139761 "Improve Dynalink class nomenclature and package organization" at <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8139761/webrev.jdk9> for <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8139761>
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>   Attila.
>