harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ivan Popov" <ivan.g.po...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [tools][launcher] Where should the launcher code reside?
Date Mon, 14 May 2007 12:10:31 GMT

Today jdktools build depends on classlib and drlvm builds. Adding one
more dependency between jdktools and classlib builds will lead to a
cyclic dependency, which should be resolved somehow.

I think the most simple way technically is to leave launcher code in
classlib component.


On 5/14/07, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@apache.org> wrote:
> Stepan Mishura wrote:
>   > 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)
> I am catching up with emails after vacations and just saw this thread. I
> am +0.5 to java launcher in jdktools and I think that the working
> process could be organized without having to build full HDK every time.
> Just look at how drlvm is built, it always requires to compile classlib
> first and no one complains about it. If someone works primary on drlvm,
> classlib may be compiled just once in a while and there is no big reason
> to rebuild it all the time when VM is built.
> The same could be done with jdktools. Then the sequence of building
> separate packages would be the following: jdktools -> classlib -> vm.
> Classlib build script would copy files from the deploy directory of
> jdktools and VM build script would copy compiled classlib to its deploy
> directory.
> Classlib developers would need to compile jdktools just once in a while
> (updates to the launcher are quire rare anyway) and then compile just
> classlib which would take java executable from jdktools.
> Anyway, I agree with Tim's comment that it is not the most important
> thing to do.
> > 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
> >>
> >
> --
> Gregory

View raw message