Proposal to revise forest graph and integration practices for JDK 9

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at
Wed Dec 4 01:32:14 PST 2013

On 03/12/2013 18:47, Joe Darcy wrote:
> :
> The separate repositories for corba, jaxp, and jax-ws were put in 
> place to reflect these differences in code origin and handling; 
> however, I agree it is worthwhile to contemplate a repository 
> consolidation, at least for all the libraries-related repos (jdk, 
> corba, jaxp, jaxws).
I agree that jaxp and corba should be looked at. That would also help 
with a number of awkward circular dependencies and build issues (the 
code in these two repositories really needs to be in the same big 
compilation unit as the code in the jdk repository, at least until we/if 
get to the point where the JDK is compiled as modules). Furthermore, the 
timing is probably right for JAXP as it has proposed to discontinue its 
standalone form and this opens the door to taking advantage of new Java 
Language features and APIs.

I'm less sure about the jaxws repository as this is the transformation 
of code from a number of upstream projects. Having it in its own 
repository makes it a bit more obvious that we shouldn't be changing 
anything in that code (as it will be trashed by updates from upstream). 
Also it does not need to be compiled with the code in the jdk repository 
and actually doesn't need to be packaged in rt.jar either (but that is a 
separate topic). If nothing else, then I think that the code in the 
jaxws repository should be compiled after the jdk repository to avoid 
some of the boot cycle build issues that periodically arises with big 
updates from upstream.


More information about the jdk9-dev mailing list