On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Adam Murdoch <adam.murd...@gradleware.com>wrote:
> Hi, > > Just some thoughts on how we might spike a solution for incremental java > compilation, to see if it’s worthwhile and what the effort might be: > > The goal is to improve the Java compile tasks, so that they do less work > for certain kinds of changes. Here, ‘less work’ means compiling fewer > source files, and also touching fewer output files so that consumers of the > task output can also do less work. It doesn’t mean compiling the *fewest* > possible number of source files - just fewer than we do now. > > The basic approach comes down to keeping track of dependencies between > source files and the other compilation inputs - where inputs are source > files, the compile classpath, the compile settings, and so on. Then, when > an input changes, we would recompile the source files that depend on that > input. Currently, we assume that every source file depends on every input, > so that when an input changes we recompile everything. > > Note that we don’t necessarily need to track dependencies at a > fine-grained level. For example, we may track dependencies between packages > rather than classes, or we may continue to assume that every source file > depends on every class in the compile classpath. > > A basic solution would look something like: > > 1. Determine which inputs have changed. > 2. If the compile settings have changed, or if we don’t have any history, > then schedule every source file for compilation, and skip to #5. > 3. If a class in the compile classpath has changed, then schedule for > compilation every source file that depends on this class. > 4. If a source file has changed, then schedule for compilation every > source file that depends on the classes of the source file. > 5. For each source file scheduled for compilation, remove the previous > output for that source file. > 6. Invoke the compiler. > 7. For each successfully compiled source file, extract the dependency > information for the classes in the source file and persist this for next > time. > > For the above, “depends on” includes indirect dependencies. > > Steps #1 and #2 are already covered by the incremental task API, at least > enough to spike this. > > Step #3 isn’t quite as simple as it is described above: > - Firstly, we can ignore changes for a class with a given name, if a class > with the same name appears before it in the classpath (this includes the > source files). > - If a class is removed, this counts as a ‘change’, so that we recompile > any source files that used to depend on this class. > - If a class is added before some other class with the same name in the > classpath, then we recompile any source files that used to depend on the > old class. > - Dependencies can travel through other classes in the classpath, or > source files, or a combination of both (e.g. a source class depends on a > classpath class depends on a source class depends on a classpath class). > Re whole #3 step Do you have some thoughts on how to figure out what classes have changed in the compile classpath given the classpath consists mostly of jars and the incremental api only tells us currently that jar X have changed? I can imagine that we have this information for project dependencies, because project dependencies are 'internal' jars, also compiled incrementally, so we should have all information. This may be tricky for 'external' jars, though. Are you after a generic solution that works for internal and external jars? If so, do you have some thoughts on how to approach it. In what ways you see improving the incremental task api here? Step #4 is similar to step #3. > > For a spike, it might be worth simply invalidating everything when the > compile classpath changes, and just deal with changes in the source files. > > For step #7 we have three basic approaches for extracting the dependencies: > > The first approach is to use asm to extract the dependencies from the byte > code after compilation. The upside is that this is very simple to implement > and very fast. We have an implementation already that we use in the tooling > API (ClasspathInferer - but it’s mixed in with some other stuff). It also > works for things that we only have the byte code for. > > The downside is that it’s lossy: the compiler inlines constants into the > byte code and discards source-only annotations. We also don’t easily know > what type of dependency it is (is it an implementation detail or is is > visible in the API of the class?) > > Both these downsides can be addressed: For example we might treat a class > with a constant field or a class for a source-only annotation as a > dependency of every source file, so that when one of these things change, > we would recompile everything. And to determine the type of dependency, we > just need to dig deeper into the byte code. > The second approach is to use the compiler API that we are already using to > invoke the compiler to query the dependencies during compilation. The > upside is that we get the full source dependency information. The downsides > are that we have to use a sun-specific extension of the compiler API to do > this and it’s a very complicated API, which means fiddly to get right. > What compiler API do you mean? What is the downside of using sun-specific extension here? > The third approach is to parse and analyse the source separately from > compilation. > Do you mean Compiler Tree Api here? Perhaps we can mix the approaches. E.g. for certain classes we could go for source analysis. Source analysis might be interesting from the standpoint of the daemon's background activity. Imagine the daemon works out the class dependencies as the developer edits the java code. > I’d probably try out the first option, as it’s the simplest to implement > and probably the fastest at execution time. > > There are some issues around making this efficient. > First, we need to make the persistence mechanism fast. For the spike, let’s > assume we can do this. I would just keep the state in some static field > somewhere and not bother with persistence. > We could use daemon's state as we do for task history cache. > Second, we need to make the calculation of affected source files fast. One > option is to calculate this when something changes rather than each time we > run the compilation task, so that we keep, basically, a map from input file > to the closure of all source files affected by that input file. > > Third, we need to keep the dependency graph as small as we can. So, we > might play around with tracking dependencies between packages rather than > classes. We should also ignore dependencies that are not visible to the > consumer, so that we don’t traverse the dependencies of method bodies, or > private elements. > > Finally, we should ignore changes that are not visible to the consumer, so > that we ignore changes to method bodies, private elements of a class, the > annotations of classes, debug info and so on. This is relatively easy for > changes to the compile classpath. For changes to source files, it’s a bit > trickier, as we don’t know what’s changed until we compile the source file. > We could, potentially, compile in two passes - first source files that have > changed and then second source files that have not change but depend on > those that have. Something, potentially, to play with as part of a spike. > Can you elaborate why it's easy to obtain this information from the compile classpath? > > > -- > Adam Murdoch > Gradle Co-founder > http://www.gradle.org > VP of Engineering, Gradleware Inc. - Gradle Training, Support, Consulting > http://www.gradleware.com > > > > -- Szczepan Faber Principal engineer@gradle; Founder@mockito
