On 4/02/2013 8:50 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:42 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com
I am also hoping that this will not simply be a copy'n'modify port
as we have seen in the past. The proliferation of platform ifdefs in
shared code is truly horrendous; as is the duplication across the
purportedly platform-specific code. This problem wasn't addressed
for the Mac port but in my opinion (and that is all it is) it needs
to be before the community accepts any further ports.
That would be nice but that is not and can not be the focus of this
port. It would also have a much bigger impact on all the currently
supported platforms than doing it in the way how all the other ports
have been done until now.
I had thought that when this was proposed the issue of not doing a
simple copy'n'modify, and the need for an improved architecture to allow
ease of porting was raised. But it seems my recollection was incorrect.
My apologies for that. It is of course not reasonable to expect this as
the port is completed.
That said I still have grave concerns about the maintainability of the
codebase due to the excessive use of platform ifdefs in "shared" code,
and the excessive duplication in "platform specific" code. And that each
new port makes it that much harder to instigate such changes. I feel
with this port we will have reached a point now where it is almost
impossible to fix this. It would take significant resources to refactor
the code etc, dealing with all the existing platforms, while at the same
time trying to evolve the platform to Java 9.
David
-----
That said, we would warmly welcome any initiative (maybe a JEP) for
refactoring the class library to make it more portable. JDK9 may
probably be the appropriate target for such a project.
I'd also like to understand the proposed maintenance model going
forward. We (in Oracle) already have to accommodate our closed ports
when they are affected by changes to common code that requires
per-platform changes as well. Who will be providing the changes
needed for aix-ppc? And how will that happen?
The changesets will of course be provided by us (IBM and SAP). How this
will happen is up to the OpenJDK cummunity and Oracle. Mark promised to
propose a formal policy for how this may look like.
Again I think the big picture issues need to discussed on jdk8-dev
(or perhaps it is time to start jdk8u-dev?) before getting into
changeset specifics for hotspot and core-libs.
Thanks,
David
-----
What do you mean with "ramping up infrastructure":
- hardware resources (like test/build infrastructure)?
- human resources within Oracle?
- human resources within IBM/SAP?
I think we have most of these allocated (except the Oracle part
which I
can not speak about:)
-phil.
On 2/1/2013 5:57 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:15 PM, David Holmes
<david.hol...@oracle.com <mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>
<mailto:david.holmes@oracle.__com
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>>>__wrote:
On 1/02/2013 8:11 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com
<mailto:mark.reinh...@oracle.com>
<mailto:mark.reinhold@oracle.__com
<mailto:mark.reinh...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Posted: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/*____*175
<http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/*__*175>
<http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/__**175
<http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/**175>><http://openjdk.java.__net/__jeps/175
<http://openjdk.java.net/__jeps/175>
<http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/__175
<http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/175>>>
I'm forced to send this to porters-dev but I do not
subscribe to that list
(so it will probably get held up).
Given the way the JEP tasks have been split it
would seem
much more
appropriate to me for discussions to occur on
hotspot-dev
and core-libs-dev
as this, as the JEP says, is about the integration
effort
not the porting
effort.
Yes, I agree. I just wanted to wait until the JEP was
published
before
posting it to the appropriate lists
That said this is also relevant to jdk8-dev, also
cc'd, as
it affects all
JDK 8 development. I have trouble seeing how such a
large
effort can be
assimilated within the timeframes of the Java 8
schedule.
As previously discussed on porters-dev the current
target is not
the first
JDK 8 release but rather the first non-security update
(i.e.
something like
JDK 8u2)
Regards,
Volker
David
- Mark
