harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ilya Neverov" <ilya.neve...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jdktools] svn commit r479920 - build and src tree
Date Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:40:44 GMT
On 11/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Ilya Neverov wrote:
> > Hi Geir,
> >
> > I eventually managed to build 'jdktools' created in your commit [1] in
> > context of harmony-hdk-r468731 but the 'test' target failed - will try
> > to resolve tomorrow.
>
> I don't think they work - it's still a work in progress.  I was going to
> do a little more today and update to the list.  I was working last night
> based on your patch, but was really just hacking around.
>
> I didn't understand some of what you were trying to accomplish in your
> patch, so I figured I'd try some myself to grok how things come
> together.  For example, I couldn't see why things were being done in
> "working_jdktools", since in jdktools/trunk, we should have everything
> setup, and use the switch trick in the federated build.

It doesn't matter now -  it was an attempt to prepare changes which
can be commited at once.

In my variant I tried to avoid multiple antcalls and to use importing
as much as possible. The idea was to gather all 'rules' into files in
the jdktools/make directory and to have a little property definition
in each <module>/build.xml. I think now that antcalls are not a big
issue for building jdktools so we can return to assessing build system
later, when jdktools build takes long time to complete. We can live
some time with current build model.

>
> >
> > I'd like to understand future evolution of the 'jdktools' - could you
> > please comment the items below.
> >
> > 1) Do we need separate jdk/lib/tools.jar and jdk/jre/lib/jretools.jar?
> > I guess it's too early to think about separate Harmony-jre bundle so
> > all jdktools can yet go into single tools.jar.
>
> Right, and copy to both places or something for now.

Consensus!

>
> >
> > 2) Do we need a possibility to build/test jdktools without building
> > classlib (using harmony-hdk bundles) ? This feature can be useful for
> > people who want to work with some tool sources only.
>
> yes, it's that way already -  the current mode requires a -Dhy.hdk=
> param to ant to get it to work as I didnt' think i was far enough to
> integrate yet.

Now I see this in ant files. I was confused with 'hy.hdk' and 'hy.jdk'
names - first one is for HDK used as build context but second name is
for 'target' directory. Does it make sense to rename 'hy.jdk' to
'target.dir'?  I can prepare the patch.

>
> My thought was that this would be designed for use by default in the
> federated build (so it would just reach over to the known location of
> the working_classlib), but easily overridable w/ a property.

Default value for 'hy.hdk' should be "../working_classlib/deploy" to
work in federated build w/o external definition. It would give also a
good hint for those who executed build w/o defining "-Dhy.hdk=..." -
ant error message will contain path to working_classlib.

>
> >
> > 3) Do we need selective build feature like '-Dbuild.module= ' for
> > classlib. Again it will be very useful for people working for example
> > on jdwp/ module.
>
> We could add that, or just go into the module and type "ant".  If we can
> avoid the requirement to always run top level build w/ a -Dbuild.module
> I'd like to.  Time will tell.

I agree - 'ant' in module dir looks enough. The only thing should be
checked in such approach - creating and deleting 'deploy' and 'build'
directories where build stores results and intermediate files. The
same about testing.

>
> >
> > I'm going to proceed with current state of the jdktools/ sources to
> > provide features 2) and 3) and it would be nice to know your plans in
> > this area.
>
> Sure!  And I'm interested in what you think of what's there.  It's
> exactly modeled after what I thought you were doing, although I probably
> did a bit of "rip and shred" to simplify, and probably missed important
> details.  Please let me know what you think.

No big issues at the moment; I'm still looking into the 'test' part.
Do you think copying libraries from HDK to jre/bin should be done
while building launcher? I think they are needed for testing only so
this step can be moved to the 'test' target chain. Am I correct?

>
> Today I was going to add JDWP and see how to integrate it...
>
> geir
>
> >
> > Thank you.
> > Ilya
> >
> > [1]
> > -------------------
> > r479920 | geirm | 2006-11-28 11:58:10 +0600 (Tue, 28 Nov 2006) | 4 lines
> >
> > copied the high-level build files from classlib
> > and modified to just build launcher and tools jars
> > --------------------
>

Mime
View raw message