Request for Review: Java SE 8 Compact Profiles

David Holmes david.holmes at
Fri Dec 21 23:27:43 UTC 2012

On 22/12/2012 1:18 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:18 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> webrevs:
>> top-level repo:
> These comments in Main.gmk don't seem to make sense:
> 117 # Note: This double-colon rule is intentional, to support
> 118 # custom make file integration.
> 119 images:: source-tips demos images-only
> Do lines 117 and 118 just need to be deleted?

No they are correct - sorry if they don't make sense. A "custom" 
makefile (such as the Oracle JDK closed makefile) may need to augment 
the images target (as we previously did in the old build). The :: rule 
allows for this custom images target to effectively concatenate it's 
recipe with the main one.

>> The main change is to simply add profiles and profiles-only as top
>> level make targets (similar to images). There is also a change to
>> remove the hardcoded version information (though this may be handled
>> by a separate CR).
>> jdk repo:
> Can't cover the makefiles 100%, Erik would be best to look at some of
> this, but this is what I have so far:
> On, it seems like you have just deleted a warning that
> someone explicitly asked for
> a class to be included, and also explicitly asked for that class to be
> excluded.
> If we are changing the tool so that exclusion just silently trumps any
> inclusion request, seems like we
> should just do that and delete this message. I'm fine with that, but the
> if(false) seems a bit terse.

Yes ideally this change will trigger a closer look at jarreorder and how 
it is used. AFAIK those listings have been decaying. But the warning 
message was far too noisy for the profiles builds. I did not want to go 
down a path of trying to define per-profile reorder lists given that we 
haven't maintained this for the full JRE anyway.

> Why are some of the makefiles named with a ".txt" suffix? Like
> makefiles/profile-includes.txt?

Because they aren't makefiles ;-) They are txt files that define named 
lists that happen to be compatible with makefile variable declarations.

These lists also get used by other tools eg javac and javadoc.

> Overall, I have always been uncomfortable with these detailed
> exclude/include lists when they get
> down to listing specific class files, not that your changes are making
> it any worse, but I do see this
> as an opportunity to improve things in the long run by capturing the
> specifics of our product shipments.
> So no objections from me at this time, but at some point we need Erik to
> check this out.
> Unfortunately, everybody on build-infra will be busy for a few weeks
> trying to get the cutover done. :^(

Not to mention the Xmas/NewYear break. :(


> -kto

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list