Looks great Ilya, go for it. Regards, Tim
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. > > I think the following structure will be appropriate for future > evolution of the jdktools: > > jdktools/trunk/ > build.xml > 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/ > > 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); > 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. > > I'm rather newbie in the Harmony build system so your thoughts will be > very helpful. > > Thank you > -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? >> > >>> >> > >>> geir >> > >>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Thank you. >> Ilya Neverov, >> Intel Middleware Products Division >> > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
