Hi Keith,
Sorry I have very limited cycles right now, and just had a 4 day Easter
break with anther long weekend ahead :)
You are right that the src/closed -> CUSTOM_SRC_DIR is somewhat
tangential to your issue.
The existence checks I suggested would be a check for whatever
file/directory is enough to indicate the "feature" is present.
Most uses of OPENJDK are really used to indicate !ORACLE_JDK, so
introducing a third variation doesn't really fit.
Can you give a concrete example of something that highlights this
problem for you and how your proposal addresses it? I may get a better
sense of things with specifics rather than trying to generalize -
because I don't see a general solution without a lot of refactoring.
Thanks,
David
On 22/04/2014 2:42 PM, Keith McGuigan wrote:
Hi Mark, et al.,
The sad reality of the situation is that there is indeed Oracle-specific
code in the OpenJDK makefiles, and this code interferes with our
customization of the JDK. Adding temporary signposts to allow us (and
others) to avoid this code will not make things worse. It doesn't have
to be a distribution name -- we call it whatever you like:
TO_BE_REMOVED, KEITH_IS_A_PITA, whatever -- just something to latch onto
to deactivate that code when it is not needed. This would provide
immediate relief to customizing distributors and give Oracle engineers
time to phase that code into closed makefiles (at which time the
signposts can be removed completely).
Taking all this code out wholesale instead would be great, and this is
something I am totally willing to tackle and put the effort in on if I
was in a position to do so. Unfortunately, since this is not fully
open-source, I can't do the refactoring needed to move this code into
the closed directories. And I though I could easily strip the code from
OpenJDK, this would totally muck with Oracle distribution so any patch I
would submit would surely be immediately rejected.
Considering that the code is question has been in OpenJDK for about 8
years now, I think it's safe to assume that it's not a high priority
item for Oracle engineers to get this fixed. Which is totally fine, IMO
-- it's very much a tenant of open source development that he who has
the itch ought to be the one to scratch it, and different entities are
expected to have different sets of priorities. No doubt I'm probably
the first one to complain about this :)
Unfortunately, I'm also in the unfortunate position of having an itch
(and willing fingernails), but an inability to scratch it.
So, where do we go from here and how can I help in this effort? I
really do want to help, as this is an immediate problem for me and I
can't afford to wait years for it to get fixed. I still think that
signposts are a very reasonable compromise given that:
(1) It is something that can be done independently and doesn't require
Oracle engineering resources (other than reviews and shepherding)
(2) It does not interfere with efforts to move closed code out of
OpenJDK makefiles
(3) it can be done quickly
(4) It does not avoid the Makefile-checking for existence of required
files/directories (which reduces build-brittleness)
Mark/Dave, if I can't convince you that we should take this path, can
you please suggest an alternative design? I'm not picky -- if we can
come up with something else that works then let's do it and I'll start
on it right away.
--
- Keith (itchy)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:23 PM, <mark.reinh...@oracle.com
<mailto:mark.reinh...@oracle.com>> wrote:
2014/4/16 14:52 -0700, david.hol...@oracle.com
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>:
> src/closed is Oracle's "custom source" location (hotspot calls it
> alt_src). If we never saw src/closed in the makefiles, only
> CUSTOM_SRC_DIR, and guarded with an existence test for a specific
> directory/file, then that should address your problem. That would
be a
> first step in moving things to the custom makefiles where they
belong.
>
> I'm opposed to the ORACLEJDK variable because I want to maintain the
> pressure to get this fixed properly. If we hack around it then it
will
> never get cleaned up.
I think it's wrong, in principle, for OpenJDK source code to contain
identifiers naming specific vendors of JDK implementations. We're not
quite there at the moment, but let's please not add any more.
- Mark
