Need reviewers - 6856630: Restructure jaxp repository
Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM
Sat Aug 8 01:13:26 UTC 2009
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/8/8 Kelly O'Hair <Kelly.Ohair at sun.com>:
>> Yeah. I tossed this around in my head, drop seemed short and cute. ;^)
>> Most if not all the import components are tools used to do the build
>> but not sources that became part of the product built bits.
>> Maybe the IcedTea guys can chime in on this.
>> I'm happy to change it to another name that makes more sense.
>> Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>> Well, elsewhere in the JDK build, the name "import" seems to cover the
>>> same concept
>>> of inbound stuff from outside the repository.
>>> But, I know you do similar stuff in the FX world, so I wasn't sure if
>>> "drop" came from there.
>>> -- Jon
>>> Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>>> The drop name just dropped into my head :^)
>>>> Do you have a better name for it?
>>>> Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>>>> Is the "drop" name a standard convention, as compared to, say, "import"?
>>>>> -- Jon
> 'drop' sounds fine and makes sense to me at least.
> On more important matters, if I'm reading this right it does the
> following as part of the build:
> #1: Finds a JAXP zip either via ALT_JAXP_SOURCE_BUNDLE or, failing
> that, downloads one
> #2: Extracts that bundle
> #3: Builds the code
Yes, but actually if the drop area already exists, #1 and #2 are skipped.
So if we bundle up a jdk source bundle and preload the drop/src in it,
then that works too.
> If that is the case, it sounds a hell of a lot like what IcedTea does
> with OpenJDK anyway, so I can't see that much of a problem. Is there
> a bundle available so this can be tested?
Yes, this should work now. The copy will fail, then it should download
a preliminary one we are testing with.
> On the plus side, it would mean we weren't duplicating the JAXP and
> JAXWS code about thirty times.
> On the negative side, it makes it even less clear how changes get into
> these. We no doubt have some local ones already that would be lost by
> using the bundle (though I think most are build changes to Makefiles
> like DEBUG_CLASSFILES). I don't think that's a blocker, but there
> needs to be a clear documented route for getting patches into JAXP and
> JAXWS just like we get them into the rest of OpenJDK.
The JAXP changes would need to go through the JAXP team, I don't think
that is a change, formal changes to these files always went through that
team as far as I know.
This should make it easier for the JAXP team to integrate their
contribution into jdk7, so in theory we could get more frequent and
newer JAXP sources.
I did put a patch mechanism in place, for jdk7 emergencies.
But I would think the first choice would always be to get a fresh
> Any plans to do something similar with CORBA? :)
Maybe... jaxp and jaxws first. corba is not part of the plan right now,
but who knows...
More information about the build-dev