Jack, -----Original Message----- From: automake-bounces+john.calcote=gmail....@gnu.org [mailto:automake-bounces+john.calcote=gmail....@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jack Kelly Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:34 AM To: Ralf Wildenhues Cc: 9...@debbugs.gnu.org; autom...@gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#9088: Java support
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> wrote: > * Jack Kelly wrote on Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 06:13:58AM CEST: >> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:55 AM, tsuna wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> >> As my java foo is pretty weak, I'm not sure how to handle jar >> >> manifests, jar entry points, or other jar/javac subtleties and advanced features. >> >> Suggestions welcome. >> > >> > You can create the manifest manually fairly easily. Here's an >> > example in the project I'm in the process of autotoolizing: >> > https://github.com/stumbleupon/opentsdb/blob/6059488f38fc8a51d426d6 >> > 972eee6fdd1033d851/Makefile#L207 >> >> Perhaps there should be support for a foo_jar_JARADD, that by analogy >> to _LDADD, that specifies additional files to be included in the jar? > > Why would it have to be a new primary, instead of just reusing _LDADD? Because, IMO, it's conceptually different. The output's being assembled with `jar', not `ld'. Actually...conceptually, a jar is identical to a library identical: A library is an archive of objects. A jar is an archive of objects. Jar's happen to be compressed as well, but that's irrelevant. Conceptually, they're the same. I would argue in favor of different names for political reasons. :) There's still a fairly large rift between C/C++ and Java developers. --john
