On 30 May 2013, at 12:47, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 30/05/2013 11:15, Steve Poole wrote: >> Thanks for the quick response Bob. >> >> This all seems quite manual - are there any plans to add support to OpenJDK >> to help with this process? >> > If someone is porting OpenJDK to an environment that doesn't support shared > libraries then there is likely going to be significant porting effort and the > build changes are likely going to be very platform specific. > > However, as you picked out a specific statement from the JEP then I wonder if > perhaps you might be asking something else. Maybe you are asking about > environments that support shared libraries and for whatever reason you'd like > to link your library with the VM? > hi Alan -- that was a part of my thought process. I was just trying to figure out why I would want to make use of the spec change at all if in reality I am expected to deal with hand-crafting an implementation. Why would I bother to use this new process if I'm already hacking the JDK to port to some new environment? I was expecting that you would have plans to help developers create statically linked binaries using a build process that they could easily opt into. Of course - as your question implies - that would be a build process running on a OS that supports shared libraries today. I thought I understood what some of the target environments might be and in those cases the use of static vs dynamic is a business choice not a technical one :-) Cheers > -Alan >
