harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vladimir Ivanov" <ivavladi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [tools][launcher] Where should the launcher code reside?
Date Fri, 04 May 2007 10:00:57 GMT
OK, what I should do if I want to use CLASSLIB+IBMVM?
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
> >

View raw message