harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [general] creation of "jdktools"
Date Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:24:58 GMT


Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> Take me for example. I will be most likely misleaded with "build"
> since the majority of projects I've seen in my life were using "build"
> or "build.<platform>" for  storing build artifacts (as Mark said). I
> agree it is logically to call it "build". But "make" is logical too.
> "ant" or "ant.scripts"  also sound not so bad. Why not to choose the
> less confusing name?

(I believe you meant "make" or "make.<platform>")

What projects?  Java projects?

> 
> With best regards,
> 
> 2006/10/31, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>:
>> Why?  I'm really curious about this.  We "build" the project, using the
>> "build.xml" file with Ant.
>>
>>
>> Ilya Neverov wrote:
>> > I would prefer to keep the current name "make" for directories related
>> > to build system. For me it looks natural; at least it looks less
>> > misleading than "build" :)
>> >
>> > -Ilya
>> >
>> > On 10/31/06, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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?
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message