On 03/01/2019 05:32 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
I think we should really get rid of sjavac since the relevant
benefits are already present in the default build, with the javac
server and the dependency plugin. The only possible benefit of sjavac
today would be more fine grained incremental build support, but I
doubt it works very well given that it's not being maintained.
Agree. I opened https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8219973.
/Magnus
Magnus, et al,
Be careful. There is as yet no "javac server". The server mechanism is
currently only available within sjavac.
There is a desire/goal to provide a "javac server". When first
suggested, it was considered blocked by the need of some
platform-specific features in the main `java.util.Process` API. However,
when the core-libs team looked at the RFE, it was not clear that the
work was actually required. The issue is the ability to create a process
that can outlive the parent; at one point, it was believed that this was
not easy/possible with existing Java API on all necessary platforms (i.e
all platforms supported by the build.)
-- Jon
