harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hindess <mark.hind...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [general] creation of "jdktools"
Date Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:51:40 GMT

On 30 October 2006 at 18:38, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> Ilya Neverov wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I want to gather opinions about structure of the "jdktools" component.
> > 
> > I'm going to create scripts for moving tools' sources from classlib/
> > to top-level directory jdktools/ and to prepare patches for build
> > system for building tools from new place.
> 
> Cool
> 
> > 
> > I think the following structure will be appropriate for future
> > evolution of the jdktools:
> > 
> > jdktools/trunk/
> >               build.xml
> >               make/
> 
> Can we stop persisting this mistake?  Please call it "build" :)

And call 'build' something else like 'target'?

I'm not actually sure calling it build is a good idea because a number
of common projects use build to contain built artifacts.  What is your
objection to 'make'?

> >               doc/
> >               modules/
> >                       jre/         #  keytool, tool launcher go here
> >                          build.xml #  classes go to jdk/jre/lib/tools.jar
> >                          make/
> >                          src/
> >                       jdk/         #  javac, jarsigner go here
> >                          build.xml #  classes go to jdk/lib/tools.jar
> >                          make/
> >                          src/
> >                       jdwp/        #  separate module for large component
> >                          build.xml
> >                          make/
> >                          src/
> 
> Only comment is that we might want to pull the launcher out to be a 
> peer.  Otherwise, I like it.

I'd be a little tempted by that idea too.

> > 
> > Assumptions which look reasonable for jdktool's build subsystem:
> > 
> > 1) it works in presence of built classlib (as HDK binaries or as a
> > result of classlib phase of overall build);
> 
> yes - think of the same trick we do w/ DRLVM to "reach over" to find it. 
>   I'd imagine the federated build to then have :
> 
>     trunk/
>        working_classlib/
>        working_vm/
>        working_jdktools/
> 
> > 2) the 'jre' module is always built before building 'jdk' to provide
> > generic tool launcher and the jre/lib/tools.jar. Probably it will be
> > easy to obtain these items from HDK.
> 
> That's one reason why I'd pull the launcher out to it's own module
> 
> > 
> > I'm rather newbie in the Harmony build system so your thoughts will be
> > very helpful.
> 
> Ant and make will be your friends here :)  Note that you will have 
> native issues (because of the launcher), so please track the way that 
> classlib does this wrt platforms to start, and if you find things that 
> work better, suggest it.  Mark and Ollie are wizards here.
> 
> I'd suggest starting out to accommodate (windows,linux) X (x86, x86_64) 
> if you grok what I mean, and do it in a way that it will be trivial to 
> add other OSs or processor architectures (IPF, for example).

> This might be a good place to figure out how this should work going
> forward for harmony, rather than experimenting in classlib.

+1

> > 
> > Thank you
> 
> No, thank you :)

+1

Regards,
 Mark.

> geir
> 
> > -Ilya
> > 
> > 
> > On 10/19/06, Ilya Neverov <ilya.neverov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Geir,
> >>
> >> Looks like that creating the "jdktools" source tree and build was
> >> shaded by other tasks. I can help with preparing and checking updates
> >> in the build system. Please let me know what needs to do in this area
> >> (besides svn commits) to complete the task.
> >>
> >> I'm especially interested in completing the move to "jdktools"
> >> structure since there will be a home for the JDWP code, which has beed
> >> voted but still resides in JIRA. Working with SVN will be easier.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >> -Ilya
> >>
> >> On 10/4/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> > yep, that's the plan.   And once we have that, we can simplify the
> >> > launcher as well...
> >> >
> >> > Tim Ellison wrote:
> >> > > +1 for creating a jdktools directory.  The dependency on the classlib
> >> > > launcher should be relatively light if we go with a simple tools
> >> > > launcher that rewrites the tool invocation into a generic launcher
> >> > > invocation.  You may recall the idea was discussed a while ago.
> >> > >
> >> > > So, for example,
> >> > >   jdk/bin/javac -source 1.5 -J-Xmx200M  FooBar
> >> > > is rewritten to
> >> > >   jdk/jre/bin/java -cp jdk/lib/tools.jar;jdk/lib/ecj.jar -Xmx200M
> >> > > org.apache.harmony.tools.javac.Main -source 1.5 FooBar
> >> > >
> >> > > and so on.
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > > Tim
> >> > >
> >> > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> > >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> > >>> Now that we have javac, javah, javap (if Tim votes ;) and

> >> keytool, I'd
> >> > >>> like to organize these and add them to the next snapshot.
> >> > >> My bad - the javap isn't being voted on yet.  I was thinking of

> >> the jdwp
> >> > >> vote... sorry
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> So I propose adding a new top-level directory called "jdktools"

> >> (and
> >> > >>> rename "tools" to "project_tools") and create a build target
that -
> >> > >>> with a  dependency on classlib for the launcher - creates
the 
> >> 'stuff'
> >> > >>> needed to fill into the JDK.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Any comments?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> geir
> >> > >>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Thank you.
> >> Ilya Neverov,
> >> Intel Middleware Products Division
> >>
> > 
> 



Mime
View raw message