Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/10/23 Kelly O'Hair <kelly.oh...@sun.com>:
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
[big snip]
DOH! Sorry...
Yes, these jaxp and jaxws forests can probably go away, we won't
be using them.
The current plan is that jaxp/jaxws changes (new bundles) will go
through the TL forest.
-kto
I'm guilty of also thinking that Jonathan was referring to the jaxws
and jaxp repositories per forest, rather than the specific forests.
On that note, i18n could probably die too because apparently that team
always use the swing forest for commits.
It would be nice to one day get rid of the jaxp and jaxws trees too.
I don't actually see why they were created as trees to begin with,
given they've always been upstream and not a source of many commits.
The one to actual split up would be jdk, as I can feel Mercurial
struggling with it a bit already on jdk7. But I don't know how
feasible that is, if at all. Maybe Jigsaw will help there.
One thing that does worry me -- what happens when the jaxws or jaxp
code needs security updates?
Yes, the need to support security fixes was considered as part of this
new delivery model. Ultimately a revised source bundle with the
security fixes will need to be produced. Until then, the fixes can be
represented as patches which are applied to the sources before the
build. Kelly can speak to the implementation details of the patch
mechanism.
-Joe
