Torsten Curdt wrote:
Is there some code we can see for these?
Just have a browse here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jakarta/commons/sandbox/jci/trunk/
Ok, I'd missed that you'd applied those for him. Will do.
...especially the maven plugin.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to why we need a whole new one. I can
understand it might be a bit harder to work it into the "live" Maven
plugin as this is experimental, but why don't we copy the existing one
over to JCI (as if it were a branch), and modify it there? It can be
merged back if it works out. That way you can aim for functional
equivalence and backwards compatibility.
I have some work lined up that will include:
o examples and documentation
o configuation management
o fixing an eclipse compiler issue
o class dependency awareness
...and at some stage adding jsr199 support.
That's a lot of work :)
Brett, is there a way to exclude modules based on jdk versions? The
jsr199 implementation will only compile with mustang. We probably will
have to use profiles for that, right? Can you exclude whole modules
based on that?
Yes.
I'd generally recommend making small, incremental changes through a
series of small patches. That way you can get your work reviewed (and
applied!) sooner, and if anything needs changes or it's going in the
wrong direction, there's less impact.
yepp +1 ...at the moment I've asked to get a patch at least every
week. But more often would be even better.
I'll try and filter the JCI ones separately so I actually see them :)
While I think I understand what you are doing here, the original
assumption was to use the code in Maven as a starting point. Was there a
reason not to do this? Javac is completely implemented there.
While I agree starting from the maven source code would have been
better, the maven implementation is probably not good enough as jci
features in memory compilation ...which is not directly supported by
javac out-of-the-box.
I though we had to use a very ugly work-around but Peter found a very
smart way around that. Really good!
Care to elaborate?
...forking will become interesting - probably for all compilers though.
I quite like the pattern of a little bootstrapper so that forking is the
same code as usual, just with a bootstrapper that runs the jvm in the
middle.
Well, maybe my fault. I thought starting of from the
maven-compiler-plugin code but building it in jci as maven-jci-plugin.
Once stable it should be an easy replacement and we can move the code
over to the maven-compiler-plugin codebase. WDYT?
Yes, I think that's the right way to go about it, rather than starting
from scratch.
Cheers,
Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
