6856630: Restructure jaxp/jaxws repository
Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM
Thu Oct 22 22:24:00 UTC 2009
Sorry I'm so slow on this, ...
I'm looking at updating the jaxp bundle. The webrev is:
Updated jaxp source bundle, and complete removal of anything
that would use the original source. The final changeset will also
delete the jaxp/src directory so we never accidently use it.
It also adds a md5 checksum check on the bundle in the ant script,
a property value contains the expected checksum.
I'm not done, so I could add more if you want me to add the changes
mentioned here... The merge should be trivial.
One snag is that I plan on pushing this to the TL forest so that
the TL integrator (Tim Bell) can get the appropriate tests done
on the jaxp changes. In the future jaxp changes will probably
be going through the TL area.
... a few more comments below...
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/10/12 Kelly O'Hair <Kelly.Ohair at sun.com>:
>> I saw the webrev for a while, and now I can't :^(, but I saw enough...
>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>> 2009/10/7 Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>:
>>>>> I found a number of issues with the current version:
>>>>> * The drop zips are expected to be in a share/jdk7-drops subdirectory
>>>>> of the devtools directory. This doesn't really work outside Sun's
>>>>> internal setup. I've added support for ALT_DROP_DIR which can be used
>>>>> to specify an exact path to the zips. If this is not set, the old
>>>>> devtools behaviour is used.
>> I'm concerned about the name dropdir (your master copy location) vs.
>> (destination for the exploded contents) in the property names. Seems
>> I hesitate to go on a name hunt, but what about ALT_DROP_BUNDLE_DIR and
> Yes, I noticed drop.dir after posting the webrev and agree it's
> confusing. Would just making them ALT_DROPS_DIR and drops.dir not be
> sufficient? drop.bundle seems a little verbose and both mean the same
> thing to me at least.
I'm ok with ALT_DROPS_DIR and drops.dir.
>>>>> * The zips are being downloaded and extracted in the source directory,
>>>>> which could be read only. I've changed this so they are written to
>>>>> the build directory like everything else.
>> It turns out that we need this drop.dir to be in the source area if
>> we want the openjdk source zip bundles, created by RE, to include
>> the drop sources. These source bundles are created by bundling up
>> everything in the forest, prior to building, so the drop.dir needs
>> to be in the forest somehow. Otherwise, the bundling logic has to
>> merge two separate source trees, or different roots.
>> I was given a requirement that the openjdk source bundles include these
>> drop sources, easiest answer was drop.dir in the repo.
>> Not an unsurmountable problem, I avoided the more complicated path.
>> I know that becomes an issue if the repository or source is in a
>> read-only area, but that's not the only situation in the openjdk I suspect.
>> I assumed someone building from a read-only area could set
>> drop.dir to some other location.
> Would it not make more sense for RE to set the drop.dir property into
> the source directory, given it's that build that's abnormal (needing
> to distribute a post build tree in effect)?
I will look into that. You have convinced me. ;^)
>> Not sure what to say.
>> How important is it for the community that the openjdk source bundles
>> include these drop sources? e.g. ones at
>> If they are not included, when the openjdk source bundles are built,
>> they will need to download the jaxp and jaxws drop bundles at build time.
> I obviously can't speak for everyone, but for IcedTea7 we don't even
> use the download bundles any more. We grab from the IcedTea forest
> instead, which allows patches which didn't make a bxx release to be
> applied there once and used in releases. We did this for the security
> fixes with Milestone 4/1.11.
> I've already added downloading of the jaxp, jaxws and jaf bundles to
> the IcedTea build; it's this process that resulted in this webrev.
> This has two advantages; we check all the zips/tarballs at the same
> point in the build (the JAXP and JAXWS builds are then pointed at the
> directory IcedTea uses for them) and we check the MD5 sums of the
> downloads or pre-existing zips. I don't know if the latter could be
> incorporated into the OpenJDK build somehow. At present, there's no
> guarantee that these zips are valid.
> The rules look like this:
> mkdir -p drops
> if USE_ALT_JAXP_DROP_ZIP
> ln -sf $(ALT_JAXP_DROP_ZIP) drops/$(JAXP_DROP_ZIP)
> if ! echo "$(JAXP_DROP_MD5SUM) drops/$(JAXP_DROP_ZIP)" \
> | $(MD5SUM) --check ; \
> then \
> if [ -f drops/$(JAXP_DROP_ZIP) ] ; \
> then \
> mv drops/$(JAXP_DROP_ZIP) drops/$(JAXP_DROP_ZIP).old ; \
> fi ; \
> $(WGET) $(DROP_URL)/$(JAXP_DROP_ZIP) -O
> drops/$(JAXP_DROP_ZIP); \
> fi ;
> mkdir -p stamps
> touch stamps/download-jaxp-drop.stamp
> ALT_JAXP_DROP_ZIP gets set if the user specifies
> --with-jaxp-drop-zip=<path> to configure. WGET and MD5SUM are the
> respective binaries as located by configure and DROP_URL is the
> kenai.com URL as in the jaxws.properties and jaxp.properties files:
> DROP_URL = http://kenai.com/projects/jdk7-drops/downloads/download
> JAXWS_DROP_ZIP = jdk7-jaxws-2009_09_28.zip
> JAXWS_DROP_MD5SUM = debb949440c5a15ce999cfefbbc56526
> JAF_DROP_ZIP = jdk7-jaf-2009_08_28.zip
> JAF_DROP_MD5SUM = eb8cb7a4a7f14e211fbe2354878a2472
> JAXP_DROP_ZIP = jdk7-jaxp-2009_09_28.zip
> JAXP_DROP_MD5SUM = 8800970d03bab1fff188dcfafc346f5d
Ah... so my checksum logic in the ant script will serve as a
Unless you are changing the bundles and rebundling them...
nobody does that, ... do they???
Ah, if they do, they would need to change the property value
holding the checksum.
>>>>> The webrev for these changes is here:
>>>>> I've committed this to IcedTea already. Does this look ok for build
More information about the build-dev