On Thu, 16 May 2024 13:47:20 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>>> If I understand you correctly, this would be no longer a build-time only 
>>> approach to produce the "linkable runtime"? It would be some-kind of 
>>> jlink-option driven approach (as it would run some code that should only 
>>> run when producing a linkable runtime is requested)? Other than that, it 
>>> should be fine as the previous iteration basically did that but at a 
>>> different phase. Also note that the previous iteration used a build-only 
>>> jlink plugin so as to satisfy the build-time only approach, yet it ran as 
>>> part of the plugin-pipeline which wasn't desired either. But it was 
>>> something similar to what you seem to be describing now. Did I get 
>>> something wrong?
>> 
>> I think it continues to build time, it's just using some hidden jlink 
>> option. So yes, it similar to a previous iteration except that it doesn't 
>> run as a plugin the pipeline and the delta goes to the lib directory.
>> 
>> Let's see what @mlchung says. You've put a lot of work into this so let's 
>> see if we can converge to avoid too many more rounds.
>
>> @AlanBateman @mlchung The latest update now uses the `jlink` build time 
>> option `--generate-linkable-runtime` to add needed resources to the `jimage` 
>> when a runtime linkable JDK image is being asked for using the configure 
>> option. This now runs outside the plugin-pipeline. I think this is what you 
>> meant. Sorry it took longer to get back to this...
> 
> I think you've got this to a good place and I think the overall solution is 
> good. It may be that JDK should move to this by default in the future, and at 
> the same time re-visit the restriction on generating an image containing 
> jdk.jlink, but let's see if any issues come up.
> 
> I've added myself as Reviewer to the CSR and I'm working through the code 
> changes.

@AlanBateman 

> I'm working through the code changes.

Do you think you'll be able to review this next week?

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14787#issuecomment-2127614784

Reply via email to