Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v24]

2024-04-05 Thread Andrew Dinn
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:31:18 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Kind of aligning with the "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" >> prejudice of German. ;-) >> >> >> >> (In Sweden, we have "flaggstångsknoppsförgyllare" so you are not alone) > > Hah! My kids just recently informed me about

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v24]

2024-04-05 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:21:09 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Just to clarify: I did not say the name needed to be long, just that many >> (if not all) tools has used the convention of using the package name >> `build.tools.` and the class name `.java`. >> >> I think the new name sounds  . > >

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v24]

2024-04-05 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:25:49 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Thanks. Yes, the long name was my doing. Sorry. > > Kind of aligning with the "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" > prejudice of German. ;-) > > > > (In Sweden, we have "flaggstångsknoppsförgyllare" so you are not alone)

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v24]

2024-04-05 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 20:56:02 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> I was not aware of such a convention and I can't say I agree with it. It >> just seems redundant and unnecessary, but I suppose we should wait for >> Magnus to respond. > > Just to clarify: I did not say the name needed to be long,

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v24]

2024-04-04 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 15:38:36 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> FYI: This was trying to address a comment from @magicus >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14787#discussion_r1514894494 Happy to >> not follow that convention and/or rename the tool. > > I was not aware of such a convention and I

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v24]

2024-04-04 Thread Erik Joelsson
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 15:24:53 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> make/CompileToolsJdk.gmk line 50: >> >>> 48: EXCLUDES := \ >>> 49: build/tools/classlist \ >>> 50: build/tools/runtimeimagelinkdeltaproducer \ >> >> This directory name is comically long. I guess that's not really a

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v24]

2024-04-04 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:56:41 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 100 commits: >> >> - Fix coment >> - Fix comment >> - Fix typo >> - Revert some now unneded build

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v24]

2024-04-04 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 13:00:33 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 100 commits: >> >> - Fix coment >> - Fix comment >> - Fix typo >> - Revert some now unneded build

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v24]

2024-04-04 Thread Erik Joelsson
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 11:12:43 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this patch which adds a jlink mode to the JDK which doesn't >> need the packaged modules being present. A.k.a run-time image based jlink. >> Fundamentally this patch adds an option to use `jlink` even though your JDK >>

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v24]

2024-04-04 Thread Severin Gehwolf
> Please review this patch which adds a jlink mode to the JDK which doesn't > need the packaged modules being present. A.k.a run-time image based jlink. > Fundamentally this patch adds an option to use `jlink` even though your JDK > install might not come with the packaged modules (directory