Rana Dasgupta wrote:
Hi,
Is there an expectation of a standardised deployment model for the
Harmony
compliant VM's like DRLVM and others? Eg., should they all produce
binaries
that can be unpacked to overlay the Harmony Classlib deployment structure
as can the IBM VME? At some point, we will be posting distributions
for both
class libraries and VM on the Harmony site; they should be deployable
on a
user machine in some standard way.
I think it makes sense to have a standard "shape" for deployed binaries,
so that
for users to get a completely working jdk it is as simple as grabbing
VME and
Classlib distributions and unpacking them in the same place. There is a
subtle
difference here between Harmony VMs and the IBM VME however, in that
the IBM VME was intended for development use, and so matches the
expected layout of a developers deploy directory. An actual customer of the
Harmony runtime would expect something closer to what they are used to
with other Java implementations.
It was suggested by Mark [1] that we create snapshots for the proposed hdk,
the jdk and the jre. The hdk is intended for use by Harmony developers;
the jdk and jre are more familiar packages and would be the ones
used by customers. I suggest that any Harmony VM release should match
the structure of one of the latter two. IMHO if a VM matches the jre
structure
this provides a "lowest common denominator" solution that can be overlaid
onto jre, jdk and hdk.
Regards,
Oliver
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Rana
On 5/17/06, Andrey Chernyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> deploy/
> \----jdk
> |----include
> \----jre
...
> 2) I was wondering how this change will affect the DRLVM? I notice
from
> building
> the VM locally that it produces a deploy\jre\bin structure, so I
imagine
> that some
> small path changes to build scripts would be necessary (similar to the
I think this specific change shouldn't directly affect the DRLVM
building script since it takes the Harmony class libraries in a source
form.
If we, however, want to adjust the JRE image produced by the DRLVM
building script, then I guess the only line that will have to be
changed (in build/make/build.xml) is:
<!-- product binary deploy location -->
<property name="build.deploy.dir"
location="../${build.os.short}_${build.arch}_${build.cxx}_${build.cfg
}/deploy/jre"
/>
I can include it as a next "cumulative patch".
Surely, some more updates will have to be done for xml files at
build/make/components in case the classlibs will be split by modules
in future.
Thanks,
Andrey.
On 5/17/06, Oliver Deakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ive just opened HARMONY-469 which contains a patch to rearrange the
> current layout
> of the deploy directory into:
>
> deploy/
> \----jdk
> |----include
> \----jre
>
> This is a preliminary step to reorganising the native code and
using the
> deploy directory
> as an HDK (as discussed else where in this topic [1] & [2]).
>
> If/when this patch is accepted and applied, there are a couple of
issues
> that may affect
> us that I thought would be worth bringing to general attention:
>
> 1) The IBM VME is laid out to unpack with the same directory structure
as
> the current deploy directory i.e. it overlays into
> deploy/jre/bin/default. If there is a new
> jdk directory added into the structure, then the VME will no longer
> unpack into the
> right place, which might confuse new developers hoping to try out our
> code. I am
> currently working on making a VME which reflects the new layout
> available, and I will
> send a note to the list once it is ready (this would be after
> HARMONY-469 was
> applied).
> Developers that are already using a VME in their workspace will simply
> need to move
> the deploy/jre/bin/default directory to deploy/jdk/jre/bin/default.
>
> 2) I was wondering how this change will affect the DRLVM? I notice
from
> building
> the VM locally that it produces a deploy\jre\bin structure, so I
imagine
> that some
> small path changes to build scripts would be necessary (similar to the
> changes I
> had to make in HARMONY-469).
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> [1]
>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [2]
>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> --
> Oliver Deakin
> IBM United Kingdom Limited
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Oliver Deakin
IBM United Kingdom Limited
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
