harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stepan Mishura" <stepan.mish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [tools][launcher] Where should the launcher code reside?
Date Mon, 07 May 2007 06:18:20 GMT
On 5/4/07, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
> OK, what I should do if I want to use CLASSLIB+IBMVM?

AFAIU it was proposed to build classlib with jdk_tools.

-Stepan.

> If I should build HDK and replace VM after that I vote to have
> launcher in CLASSLIB...
>
>  Thanks, Vladimir
>
>
> On 5/4/07, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> 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)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stepan.
> >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Tim

Mime
View raw message