On 06/02/2018 08:36 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > The actual changes look good to me. > > As a follow up, I think we should check if we could remove some of the JDK > prefixes that was in > place just to differentiate from the JRE. The term JDK is so overloaded, so > it would be good to > get rid of it where possible (as in "JDK image", which should be only "image" > now). > > I also hear Martin's fear about this being a too large change. I don't think > that is a problem > per se, but you should probably get some input from our downstream > distributors so that they are > able to provide the packages they feel are needed.
Unfortunately, in the age of containers, distribution size matters. It makes the whole sense to ship JRE in Docker containers to provide the execution environment for the upper layers. Remember, hardly any application is fully modularized and/or uses jlink/jimage way of distribution. Also, products that ship with their own OpenJDK distribution (e.g. JetBrains IDEs) do ship with jres, which cuts down their distribution sizes. Cost savings for having JRE only are significant, as can be observed with current bundles: 178M Jun 2 08:53 jdk-11-internal+0_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz 38M Jun 2 08:53 jre-11-internal+0_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz Therefore, I believe removing jre is too disruptive, at least for 11, at least until we see that the whole jlink/jimage thing really works out in the wider Java ecosystem and JREs are really abandoned. Thanks, -Aleksey
