harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nathan Beyer <ndbe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [general] jdktools and classlib?
Date Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:34:06 GMT
A mashup that creates "jdklibs" ...

I know I don't pay much attention to the jdktools portion, so that
does seem like a strong point.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Mark
Hindess<mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> If you are reading the commits list, you will have noticed that I've
> been making a few improvements to the ant scripts in classlib.  I've
> still got a way to go before I've finished the refactoring but I've
> already started wondering about doing the same thing for jdktools.
>
> But the question that sprang to mind was why am I doing it twice.  Why
> not just have the jdktools modules as modules in classlib?  You don't
> really lose anything in modularity since all classlib modules can be
> checked out alone and built against an hdk.
>
> I think we'd gain in that jdktools might get a little more attention if
> it was built and tested with classlib[0].  (Currently it would break
> quite a few ports since samsa seems to have quite a few linux-isms.
> I'll fix these shortly though.)
>
> Of course, it adds a little (20M on top of 250M) to the checkout
> footprint and the build/test takes a little longer so there is a
> downside.
>
> I've read the original thread[1] but I still don't see a good
> argument[2] for this separation.  What do other people think?
>
> Regards,
>  Mark.
>
> [0] and trunk -> branches/java6 merged with classlib
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/l44kkyiom45ks6e6
>
> [2] That thread did contain an argument but not a good one and not one
>    related to this topic. ;-)
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message