RFR: 8257733: Move module-specific data from make to respective module [v13]
Jonathan Gibbons
jjg at openjdk.java.net
Mon Mar 21 19:00:36 UTC 2022
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:29:25 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:
>> A lot (but not all) of the data in make/data is tied to a specific module. For instance, the publicsuffixlist is used by java.base, and fontconfig by java.desktop. (A few directories, like mainmanifest, is *actually* used by make for the whole build.)
>>
>> These data files should move to the module they belong to. The are, after all, "source code" for that module that is "compiler" into resulting deliverables, for that module. (But the "source code" language is not Java or C, but typically a highly domain specific language or data format, and the "compilation" is, often, a specialized transformation.)
>>
>> This misplacement of the data directory is most visible at code review time. When such data is changed, most of the time build-dev (or the new build label) is involved, even though this has nothing to do with the build. While this is annoying, a worse problem is if the actual team that needs to review the patch (i.e., the team owning the module) is missed in the review.
>>
>> ### Modules reviewed
>>
>> - [x] java.base
>> - [x] java.desktop
>> - [x] jdk.compiler
>> - [x] java.se
>
> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 20 commits:
>
> - Merge branch 'master' into shuffle-data
> - Correct name for bfc files
> - Merge tag 'jdk-19+14' into shuffle-data
>
> Added tag jdk-19+14 for changeset 08cadb47
> - Move x11wrappergen from share/data to unix/data
> - Fix fontconfig according to review request
> - Fix typos
> - Restore charsetmapping and cldr to make/data
> - Update copyright year
> - Merge branch 'master' into shuffle-data-reborn
> - Fix merge
> - ... and 10 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/19d34bdf...1c47d82d
As before, the changes for `jdk.compiler` and `idk.javadoc` look OK, and if there is general consensus on the overall proposed move, then I think that overall it is a good idea.
I did not review the `jdk.compiler` in low-level detail, but scanning the webrev index file, the changes seemed OK, and a pure move (no lines changed.)
It might have been better to have handled this on a per-module basis, rather than all-at-once, but whatever ...
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1611
More information about the security-dev
mailing list