There is potentially a separate discussion here, as to whether javac
should "force" the provision of a jar-fs provider.
Strictly speaking, javac does not inherently require it. You can use
javac just fine, with files in the system image, and source and class
files in the default file system. But I suspect most folk would be
suprised if they ca across an image for which javac could not read jar
files.
-- Jon
On 05/05/2016 12:01 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
On May 5, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline
<alexandre.il...@oracle.com> wrote:
Whether the java.tools API behavior is correct is a separate matter. I am
planning to create a standalone test case and take it with javac ppl.
I take this ^^^^^^ back, as the error was there all along:
"java.nio.file.ProviderNotFoundException: no provider found for .jar files”
The fix is valid, then, is and waiting for a review.
Shura
Thank you.
Shura
On May 4, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 4 May 2016, at 14:32, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2016 11:24, Chris Hegarty wrote:
:
The tests cause compilation of test library classes, but only some tests
actually use the methods that provoke compilation. Similar to above, tests
that don’t actually compile anything could depend on just java.compiler.
This is all to fragile and may cause problems with future refactoring. I
think we should add the same set of @moduels to all these tests, rather
than an individual set determined by intimate knowledge of the inner
workings of the test.
@modules java.compiler
jdk.compiler
jdk.zipfs
jdk.jartool
with the addition of jdk.httpserver for MultiReleaseJarHttpProperties.
or we could move the tests into their own MultiRelease sub-directory and create
a TEST.properties with a module key. That would allow these tests to drop
@modules, except the test that uses the HTTP server.
I think that would be better.
-Chris.
