harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [build] ant utility target to copy working_vm to working_classlib
Date Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:24:04 GMT
Dear committer,

There was an interest on the list to have an incremental federated
build rather than the build from scratch. Let me remind you that the
patch [1] solves this problem with an exception to class library
natives, so it has a reason to be committed. Another reason is that it
proved to be useful for me: I have just applied this patch to the
fourth workspace instead of waiting for the whole recompilation.

Thank you in advance.

[1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5521



On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Alexei Fedotov
<alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexey
>  You are correct about incremental build issue of the federated build.
>
>  The fix of the issue is not very difficult: see HARMONY-5521 for the
>  patch. BTW, the build file with Nathan's unified hyphens looks much
>  more readable. Thanks, Nathan!
>
>  [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5521
>
>
>
>
>  On Feb 17, 2008 1:24 PM, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > Current federated build is not suited for every day work. Because it
>  > makes only clean builds and this takes lots of time.
>  >
>  > So we should keep possibility to build class library, vm and selected
>  > class library module alone.
>  >
>  > SY, Alexey
>  >
>  > 2008/2/17, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>:
>  >
>  > > Nathan, all,
>  > > Copying class library artifacts to the working_vm/ directory is a
>  > > legacy of two component system, isn't it? Now, when we have several
>  > > (three, and will have more) upper level components, it looks
>  > > reasonable to collect the build artifacts at the same upper level. Why
>  > > should not we assemble the build in the target/ dir? May be one should
>  > > add several target directories for different build configurations. I
>  > > believe that the artifact location should not affect class library
>  > > development, we just need to move deploy directories to a common
>  > > place.
>  > >
>  > > What do you think?
>  > >
>  > > On Feb 16, 2008 11:58 PM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
>  > > > I was thinking that we could use a utility target in the top-level
>  > > > build script that copied the HDK artifacts from the working_vm to the
>  > > > working_classlib, but I'm still catching up with the new DRLVM build.
>  > > > Would copying the 'working_vm/deploy' to the 'working_classlib/deploy'
>  > > > be sufficient?
>  > > >
>  > > > The use for this would be to facilitate class library development, so
>  > > > I want to be able to run the top-level build, copy the HDK artifacts,
>  > > > then move into 'working_classlib' and be able to do cleans, rebuilds
>  > > > and tests.
>  > > >
>  > > > -Nathan
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > --
>  > > With best regards,
>  > > Alexei
>  > >
>  >
>
>
>
>  --
>  With best regards,
>  Alexei
>



-- 
With best regards,
Alexei

Mime
View raw message