harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Zakharov" <alexei.zakha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [tools][launcher] Where should the launcher code reside?
Date Mon, 07 May 2007 09:21:04 GMT
IMHO this topic is more about changing people's habits. On the one
hand it's more logical to have the launcher in jdktools since it is
not a library, on the other hand people use to have  it in
classlib/luni. Personally I don't care. However, I have strong +1 for
last Tim's sentence

> There are more interesting problems to work on :-)

:-)

Regards,

2007/5/4, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
> Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > On 5/3/07, Tim Ellison wrote:
> >> Up until yesterday we had two copies of the launcher code, one in
> >> classlib LUNI module, and one in jdktools.  Hopefully we all agree that
> >> we don't need two copies of the code.
> >>
> >> Yesterday I removed the launcher from classlib, and updated the one in
> >> jdktools; but that seems to break a number of people who rely on
> >> building classlib and dropping in a built VM to run a JRE.
> >>
> >> Arguably, the 'right' way to work is either to build an HDK from scratch
> >> (i.e. a full federated build), or download a pre-built HDK then
> >> build&test the classlib|vm|jdktools against that.  Then you will always
> >> have a full installation, and can update the bits you are working on.
> >>
> >> But if people want to keep working with just the classlib and VM then I
> >> have no objection to leaving the launcher in the classlib area.  It
> >> doesn't do anyone any harm in there.  The layout should suit our working
> >> patterns, not the other way around.
> >>
> >
> > I see the next argument for moving the launcher to jdktools - this not
> > a java library code indeed, it's just utility code that launches java.
> > But moving it to jdktools will force everybody to work with HDK. If
> > everybody think that this is 'right' way then I'm OK with it (I mainly
> > work with separate classlib and DRLVM workspaces and I find it quite
> > convenient)
> >
> > BWT, how many people use hdk build only?
> >
> > Also if we move it to jdktools we need to adjust build-and-test infra
> > that it requires time and efforts. But I think this in turn should
> > unify (i.e. simplify) the infra logic - all testing suites will depend
> > on hdk build only (not on classlib + drlvm (+ hdk) as currently we
> > have)
>
> Unless Alexey feels strongly (in which we continue to discuss), I
> suggest we just leave it where it is, in classlib.  There are more
> interesting problems to work on :-)
>
> Regards,
> Tim



-- 
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel ESSD

Mime
View raw message