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

[Hannes Wallnoefer]

Am 2015-10-20 um 20:28 schrieb Attila Szegedi:
> so, is that a +1? :-)

Yes :) I thought about adding a +1 at the end but thought it would be 
redundant.

Hannes

>> 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.