2014/10/30 3:42 -0700, Tim Boudreau <[email protected]>: > Ditching JAR file format is going to wreak havoc with IDEs, build tools and > any sort of analysis tool that utilizes javac's API or internals (I've > written some), or anything that looks for the .jar file extension.
Yes, we know. That's why we've been talking about this publicly for a couple of years now and why we're offering a sane replacement, the jrt: URL scheme, which can even be used on JDK 8. > I agree with the need for a replacement (though technically, you could put > whatever precomputed structures you want in a JAR, just not as efficiently > as is desirable), but it seems like something that's a little big for a > line-item in a proposal about something else. This change is part and parcel of the move to modular images. I don't see much point in breaking it out into a separate JEP -- which would be very short anyway, since we're not defining a (documented) format to replace JAR files. > A non-disruptive approach would be to keep the file extension and enhance > JarInputStream et. al. to transparently treat new JARs as if they were old > JARs. Is something like that being considered? No. The JAR format has run its course. It's time to move on. - Mark
