On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:23:46 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Jan Lahoda has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 11 additional >> commits since the last revision: >> >> - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8340133-2 >> - Using correct pplaceholders. >> - Adjusting text as suggested. >> - Cleaning up the concise message: >> - using 2 spaces instead of 4, >> - rewording the "for more use --help" part of the message as suggested to >> avoid the word "launcher". >> - Using lowercase for the keys in the help, using 'source-file' program >> instead of 'single-file' program. >> - Using an enum instead of booleans, as suggested. >> - Adjusting the concise help as suggested: 'using main class of a JAR >> archive' and '<JarFile>.jar'/'<SourceFile>.java' >> - Adjusting the concise help based on review suggestions. >> - Cleanup. >> - Adjusting/improving the concise help. >> - ... and 1 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/59b0cde0...b4d7b493 > > src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/resources/launcher.properties line > 241: > >> 239: \ -jar <jarfile>.jar to execute the main class of a JAR >> archive\n\ >> 240: \ -m <module>[/<mainclass>] to execute the main class of a module\n\ >> 241: \ <sourcefile>.java to compile and execute a source-file >> program\n\n\ > > I'm not sure about the description of <mainclass>. It uses "compiled class", > maybe you meant "compiled main class" or something else to connect it > "<mainclass>"? > > "-jar <jarfile>.jar" may be confusing because the "java -help" uses "-java > <jarfile">". I think the usages need to be the same. @AlanBateman I'd like to respectfully disagree that this was an improvement. If consistency was the important objection here, maybe it would have been better to update "java -help" to include the `.jar`? In particular, losing the `.java` extension is problematic. I believe that this is essential to the launcher in how it determines if I am trying to launch a class or a source-file program. I just recently tried renaming my `HelloWorld.java` to `HelloWorld.java.old`, but when I ran `java HelloWorld.java.old` I got a warning implying that java thought I was trying to run the class `old` in the package `HelloWorld.java`. I guess a better solution for the launcher would be to check if the argument given could match an existing text file, even if it looks like a fully qualified class name (but that does not exist). In fact, that might probably be worth a bug report of its own. But I insist that as long as the current behavior stands, where the trailing `.java` is essential for the launcher to understand that it is launching a source-file program, then the `.java` literal should be a part of the help. And, for the sake of consistency, that would also imply that the `.jar` suffix should be kept. (I don't know if the launcher would accept like `-jar foo.jar.old`..?) I still recall how I **struggled** when learning Java that I should do `javac HelloWorld`**`.java`** but not `java HelloWorld`**`.class`**. By explicitly stating `.jar` and `.java` where those are expected, we indirectly underscore the important fact that the class specifications should be made **without** any extension. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21411#discussion_r1838130624
