RFC: nashorn sources are missing in src.zip

[Jiri Vanek]

On 01/03/2017 01:43 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Hello Jiri,
>
> From a pure build point of view, the change looks ok, but I don't think we are allowed to accept
> patches not hosted on openjdk infrastructure.

Those patches were already accepted. And the policy "patch first, member later"  is actually 
enforcing patch elsewhere.

I'm already in author group (jdk9 project only) so I should have place on java.net, so if this is 
blocker, it can be fixed.

>
> The suitability of the change is a topic for jdk8u-dev (added). This should be considered an

Thanx!

> enhancement though. The restrictive inclusion of packages in JDK 8 and older was intentional and
> changing it in JDK 9 was definitely an enhancement. (Note that JDK 9 recently changed the src.zip
> again)
>
> One could argue that your original change to just include the jdk package is a bug fix since the
> intention of the original filtering was to just include public APIs.


Its up to you and build-dev to decide this.
If nashorn-only change will be accepted, Then I will very soon post also zipfs  patch, as it is very 
similar.

If not, then it will become just another distro-only (fedora/rhel) patch, as those sources *are* 
missing (if not all then nashorn definitely)

Thanx a lot!

   All the best,
     J.
>
> /Erik
>
> On 2017-01-03 13:12, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> Thank you very much for kind answer and additional resources.
>> There is modified backport of patch you mentioned:
>> https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/nashornMissingInSrcZip/v2/webrev/
>>
>> Except the backport itself, I had to add also nashorn sources (as jdk9 is handling this a bit
>> differently).
>> At the end I added also sources for  zipfs, as jdk9 have them too, and they were the last missing
>> bits as far as I saw.
>>
>> The size of src.zip grown from 26 to 52MB (still less then 62 of jdk9).
>>
>> I think the change i suitable for 8u, as it is bug in truth. I found it when I faced strange
>> behaviour in rhino and wonted to step in (with src.zip linked to ide)...and... nothing. So it was
>> not nice surprise.
>>
>> Tahnx again!
>>   J.
>>
>> On 01/03/2017 09:03 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>> Hello Jiri,
>>>
>>> Please see related issue [1] which was included early in JDK 9 but the backport was never done. I
>>> don't personally mind including more sources in src.zip for OpenJDK, but instead of adding them
>>> piecemeal I would argue for reopening the backport. I don't know if such a change is suitable for 8u
>>> at this point though. The size of src.zip increases quite dramatically. However, it should be noted
>>> that it's only included in the JDK image and not the JRE.
>>>
>>> For anyone unsure of the role of src.zip, it's only use is for IDEs to see the JDK sources to aid
>>> debugging of other applications.
>>>
>>> /Erik
>>>
>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044235
>>>
>>> On 2017-01-02 17:41, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>> https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/nashornMissingInSrcZip/v1/webrev/
>>>>
>>>> Hello good people!
>>>>
>>>> I have found, that nashorn sources are missing in src.zip.
>>>> It is easily fixable by webrev above.
>>>>
>>>> If you will think about it as "private api",  jdk9 *have* nashorn module sources included.
>>>>
>>>> Actually more sun* sources are missing. Or even more sources which result to ext directory. Imho
>>>> they should be included too. I will prepare patches for each set separately, if it will be agreed.
>>>>
>>>> I know that sun* are somehow deprecated. But it is sad when you can not easily debug inside the
>>>> JDK. The absence of theirs in src.zip is not the cure.
>>>>
>>>> Thanx!
>>>>   J.
>>>
>>
>