On 21/08/2016 03:49, Mandy Chung wrote:
I think it’s time to enumerate several test cases of a multi-release Jar content,
e.g. a MRJAR with a new concealed package in versioned entries but not in the base
entry (I believe that’s allowed?? version 9 & 10 entries that makes sure
versioned 10 entries are skipped. It should also check the module-info.class with
different requires and ensure that the image jlink created contains the
module-info.class of the right version. This would help the review of this change.
I agree on the test scenarios as it's tricky to get them all right.
On concealed packages then the intention is that they don't vary by JDK
version, this means the versioned section can't add packages. This isn't
a real limitation of course, it just means that the set of concealed
packages in the base version might need to list additional packages. The
jar tool has support for generating this but I don't know how many
scenarios are tested.
I think ModularJarArchive is the right place to add the versioned entries
support. JarArchive should probably be renamed to ZipArchive (that’s an
existing code).
I agree.
Version of JarFile
221 jarFile = new JarFile(file.toFile(), true, ZipFile.OPEN_READ,
JarFile.runtimeVersion());
JarFile::runtimeVersion is the version of the jlink tool. You should not use
the version of the jlink runtime. Instead, this should use the version of
java.base which will be the runtime version of the image being created.
Right, in the previous mails then I think we agreed to leave this to a
second phase. The reason is that it requires refactoring in other areas.
I have changes that Steve will need to do this second phase but for now
I think it would be good to get the first phase done as it's the phase
with all the tricky scenarios.
-Alan
