I see. I'm familiar with "target" as the place for stuff that's
created...
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> In other words: I just wanted to say that the big number of java
> projects I've been working with was using "build[.<something>]" as a
> place for storing generated stuff like .class and .jar files,
> generated docs and etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> 2006/10/31, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>
>> Alexei Zakharov wrote:
>> > Take me for example. I will be most likely misleaded with "build"
>> > since the majority of projects I've seen in my life were using
"build"
>> > or "build.<platform>" for storing build artifacts (as Mark said). I
>> > agree it is logically to call it "build". But "make" is logical too.
>> > "ant" or "ant.scripts" also sound not so bad. Why not to choose the
>> > less confusing name?
>>
>> (I believe you meant "make" or "make.<platform>")
>>
>> What projects? Java projects?
>>
>> >
>> > With best regards,
>> >
>> > 2006/10/31, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >> Why? I'm really curious about this. We "build" the project, using
>> the
>> >> "build.xml" file with Ant.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ilya Neverov wrote:
>> >> > I would prefer to keep the current name "make" for directories
>> related
>> >> > to build system. For me it looks natural; at least it looks less
>> >> > misleading than "build" :)
>> >> >
>> >> > -Ilya
>> >> >
>> >> > On 10/31/06, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 30 October 2006 at 18:38, "Geir Magnusson Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ilya Neverov wrote:
>> >> >> > > Hello,
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I want to gather opinions about structure of the "jdktools"
>> >> >> component.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I'm going to create scripts for moving tools' sources from
>> >> classlib/
>> >> >> > > to top-level directory jdktools/ and to prepare patches for
>> build
>> >> >> > > system for building tools from new place.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Cool
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I think the following structure will be appropriate for
future
>> >> >> > > evolution of the jdktools:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > jdktools/trunk/
>> >> >> > > build.xml
>> >> >> > > make/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Can we stop persisting this mistake? Please call it
"build" :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And call 'build' something else like 'target'?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm not actually sure calling it build is a good idea because a
>> number
>> >> >> of common projects use build to contain built artifacts. What
>> is your
>> >> >> objection to 'make'?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > > doc/
>> >> >> > > modules/
>> >> >> > > jre/ # keytool, tool
launcher go
>> >> here
>> >> >> > > build.xml # classes go to
>> >> >> jdk/jre/lib/tools.jar
>> >> >> > > make/
>> >> >> > > src/
>> >> >> > > jdk/ # javac, jarsigner go
here
>> >> >> > > build.xml # classes go to
>> >> jdk/lib/tools.jar
>> >> >> > > make/
>> >> >> > > src/
>> >> >> > > jdwp/ # separate module for
large
>> >> >> component
>> >> >> > > build.xml
>> >> >> > > make/
>> >> >> > > src/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Only comment is that we might want to pull the launcher out to
>> be a
>> >> >> > peer. Otherwise, I like it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd be a little tempted by that idea too.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Assumptions which look reasonable for jdktool's build
>> subsystem:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > 1) it works in presence of built classlib (as HDK binaries
>> or as a
>> >> >> > > result of classlib phase of overall build);
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > yes - think of the same trick we do w/ DRLVM to "reach over"
>> to find
>> >> >> it.
>> >> >> > I'd imagine the federated build to then have :
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > trunk/
>> >> >> > working_classlib/
>> >> >> > working_vm/
>> >> >> > working_jdktools/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > 2) the 'jre' module is always built before building 'jdk' to
>> >> provide
>> >> >> > > generic tool launcher and the jre/lib/tools.jar. Probably it
>> >> will be
>> >> >> > > easy to obtain these items from HDK.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That's one reason why I'd pull the launcher out to it's own
>> module
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I'm rather newbie in the Harmony build system so your
thoughts
>> >> >> will be
>> >> >> > > very helpful.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ant and make will be your friends here :) Note that you will
>> have
>> >> >> > native issues (because of the launcher), so please track
the way
>> >> that
>> >> >> > classlib does this wrt platforms to start, and if you find
things
>> >> that
>> >> >> > work better, suggest it. Mark and Ollie are wizards here.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'd suggest starting out to accommodate (windows,linux) X
(x86,
>> >> x86_64)
>> >> >> > if you grok what I mean, and do it in a way that it will be
>> >> trivial to
>> >> >> > add other OSs or processor architectures (IPF, for example).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > This might be a good place to figure out how this should work
>> going
>> >> >> > forward for harmony, rather than experimenting in classlib.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +1
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Thank you
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, thank you :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +1
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >> Mark.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > geir
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > -Ilya
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > On 10/19/06, Ilya Neverov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> Hi Geir,
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> Looks like that creating the "jdktools" source tree and
>> build was
>> >> >> > >> shaded by other tasks. I can help with preparing and
checking
>> >> >> updates
>> >> >> > >> in the build system. Please let me know what needs to do in
>> this
>> >> >> area
>> >> >> > >> (besides svn commits) to complete the task.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> I'm especially interested in completing the move to
"jdktools"
>> >> >> > >> structure since there will be a home for the JDWP code,
>> which has
>> >> >> beed
>> >> >> > >> voted but still resides in JIRA. Working with SVN will be
>> easier.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> Thanks.
>> >> >> > >> -Ilya
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> On 10/4/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> > yep, that's the plan. And once we have that, we can
>> >> simplify the
>> >> >> > >> > launcher as well...
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >> > Tim Ellison wrote:
>> >> >> > >> > > +1 for creating a jdktools directory. The dependency
>> on the
>> >> >> classlib
>> >> >> > >> > > launcher should be relatively light if we go with a
simple
>> >> tools
>> >> >> > >> > > launcher that rewrites the tool invocation into a
generic
>> >> >> launcher
>> >> >> > >> > > invocation. You may recall the idea was discussed a
while
>> >> ago.
>> >> >> > >> > >
>> >> >> > >> > > So, for example,
>> >> >> > >> > > jdk/bin/javac -source 1.5 -J-Xmx200M FooBar
>> >> >> > >> > > is rewritten to
>> >> >> > >> > > jdk/jre/bin/java -cp
jdk/lib/tools.jar;jdk/lib/ecj.jar
>> >> >> -Xmx200M
>> >> >> > >> > > org.apache.harmony.tools.javac.Main -source 1.5 FooBar
>> >> >> > >> > >
>> >> >> > >> > > and so on.
>> >> >> > >> > >
>> >> >> > >> > > Regards,
>> >> >> > >> > > Tim
>> >> >> > >> > >
>> >> >> > >> > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >> >> > >> > >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >> >> > >> > >>> Now that we have javac, javah, javap (if Tim votes ;)
>> and
>> >> >> > >> keytool, I'd
>> >> >> > >> > >>> like to organize these and add them to the next
>> snapshot.
>> >> >> > >> > >> My bad - the javap isn't being voted on yet. I was
>> >> thinking of
>> >> >> > >> the jdwp
>> >> >> > >> > >> vote... sorry
>> >> >> > >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> > >>> So I propose adding a new top-level directory called
>> >> >> "jdktools"
>> >> >> > >> (and
>> >> >> > >> > >>> rename "tools" to "project_tools") and create a build
>> >> >> target that -
>> >> >> > >> > >>> with a dependency on classlib for the launcher -
>> >> creates the
>> >> >> > >> 'stuff'
>> >> >> > >> > >>> needed to fill into the JDK.
>> >> >> > >> > >>>
>> >> >> > >> > >>> Any comments?
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
