On 31 October 2006 at 7:24, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Alexei Zakharov wrote: > > Take me for example. I will be most likely misleaded with "build" > > since the majority of projects I've seen in my life were using "build" > > or "build.<platform>" for storing build artifacts (as Mark said). I > > agree it is logically to call it "build". But "make" is logical too. > > "ant" or "ant.scripts" also sound not so bad. Why not to choose the > > less confusing name? > > (I believe you meant "make" or "make.<platform>") > > What projects? Java projects?
? Apache Jakarta Commons Collections uses build/classes and build/tests for artifacts... just like classlib does. -Mark. > > > > With best regards, > > > > 2006/10/31, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Why? I'm really curious about this. We "build" the project, using the > >> "build.xml" file with Ant. > >> > >> > >> Ilya Neverov wrote: > >> > I would prefer to keep the current name "make" for directories related > >> > to build system. For me it looks natural; at least it looks less > >> > misleading than "build" :) > >> > > >> > -Ilya > >> > > >> > On 10/31/06, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On 30 October 2006 at 18:38, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > 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. > >> >> > > >> >> > Cool > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I think the following structure will be appropriate for future > >> >> > > evolution of the jdktools: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > jdktools/trunk/ > >> >> > > build.xml > >> >> > > make/ > >> >> > > >> >> > Can we stop persisting this mistake? Please call it "build" :) > >> >> > >> >> And call 'build' something else like 'target'? > >> >> > >> >> I'm not actually sure calling it build is a good idea because a number > >> >> of common projects use build to contain built artifacts. What is your > >> >> objection to '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/ > >> >> > > >> >> > Only comment is that we might want to pull the launcher out to be a > >> >> > peer. Otherwise, I like it. > >> >> > >> >> I'd be a little tempted by that idea too. > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 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); > >> >> > > >> >> > yes - think of the same trick we do w/ DRLVM to "reach over" to find > >> >> it. > >> >> > I'd imagine the federated build to then have : > >> >> > > >> >> > trunk/ > >> >> > working_classlib/ > >> >> > working_vm/ > >> >> > working_jdktools/ > >> >> > > >> >> > > 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. > >> >> > > >> >> > That's one reason why I'd pull the launcher out to it's own module > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I'm rather newbie in the Harmony build system so your thoughts > >> >> will be > >> >> > > very helpful. > >> >> > > >> >> > Ant and make will be your friends here :) Note that you will have > >> >> > native issues (because of the launcher), so please track the way > >> that > >> >> > classlib does this wrt platforms to start, and if you find things > >> that > >> >> > work better, suggest it. Mark and Ollie are wizards here. > >> >> > > >> >> > I'd suggest starting out to accommodate (windows,linux) X (x86, > >> x86_64) > >> >> > if you grok what I mean, and do it in a way that it will be > >> trivial to > >> >> > add other OSs or processor architectures (IPF, for example). > >> >> > >> >> > This might be a good place to figure out how this should work going > >> >> > forward for harmony, rather than experimenting in classlib. > >> >> > >> >> +1 > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Thank you > >> >> > > >> >> > No, thank you :) > >> >> > >> >> +1 > >> >> > >> >> Regards, > >> >> Mark. > >> >> > >> >> > geir > >> >> > > >> >> > > -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? > > > > >
