On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 17:51:20 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The sjavac ("smart javac") was an ambitious project. It should parallelize >> java compilation, create a background daemon process that kept the JVM "hot" >> with the JITted javac code, define a public api so only noticeable changes >> in a class caused further dependency compilations, etc etc. >> >> Some of this never came to fruition. Other were implemented differently, as >> the `depend` plugin. The only thing we're currently using (and have been for >> the last few years) is the "server" functionality, that is, the ability to >> keep a single JVM process alive, and reuse the JITted code. >> >> This code does not belong in the jdk.compiler module. It is a buildtool, >> pure and simple. Let's move it to it's proper place. > > make/langtools/tools/javacserver/comp/SjavacImpl.java line 36: > >> 34: import java.io.PrintWriter; >> 35: import java.io.StringWriter; >> 36: import java.util.stream.Stream; > > This is a build tool, so you get to set the guidelines, but generally, this > is an unusual order for imports Haha! Calling this "unusual" is the most diplomatic expression I've heard today. :-) This is just bonkers. I used a combination of "organize imports" on IntelliJ (without setting up specific rules for the project) and a brute search-and-replace. I'll fix. > make/langtools/tools/javacserver/comp/SjavacImpl.java line 47: > >> 45: * deletion without notice.</b> >> 46: */ >> 47: public class SjavacImpl implements Sjavac { > > ... so it looks like there are still some vestiges of `Sjavac` ... Yes, I did not bother renaming the files and classes in the actual javacserver implementation. I'm hoping Christian will clean this up later on anyway. I just tried to prune out the lion's share of what's not needed anymore. > test/langtools/ProblemList.txt line 69: > >> 67: tools/sjavac/IgnoreSymbolFile.java >> 8158002 generic-all Requires investigation >> 68: tools/sjavac/ClasspathDependencies.java >> 8158002 generic-all Requires investigation >> 69: > > I presume these issues, 8152055, 8158002, are still open? They should > either be closed or assigned to the build team. No, I've closed them already, with a reference to this issue. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11185