RFR: JDK-8212780: JEP 343: Packaging Tool Implementation

[Andy Herrick]

On 10/24/2018 10:22 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 23/10/2018 16:49, Andy Herrick wrote:
>> This patch implements the Java Packager Tool (jpackager) as described 
>> in JEP 343: Packaging Tool 
>> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200758>
>>
>> jpackager is a simple packaging tool, based on the JavaFX 
>> |javapackager| tool, that:
>>
>>  * Supports native packaging formats to give the end user a natural
>>    installation experience. These formats include |msi| and |exe| on
>>    Windows, |pkg| and |dmg| on MacOS, and |deb| and |rpm| on Linux.
>>  * Allows launch-time parameters to be specified at packaging time.
>>  * Can be invoked directly, from the command line, or programmatically,
>>    via the |ToolProvider| API.
>>
>> Webrev:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~herrick/8212780/webrev.01/
>>
> cc'ing build-dev as it's important to get it reviewed there.
>
> What is the plan for tests to go with this tool? I see there is one 
> test in the webrev to do some argument validation but I don't see 
> anything else right now.
We plan to incorporate the initial feedback from this review, and 
include an initial set of automated tests in a refresh sometime next week.
We will continue to develop and automate tests for future updates.
>
> What is the status of the JNLPConverter tool? I see it is included as 
> a "demo" but maybe it would be better to host somewhere else as this 
> is for developers migrating Java Web Start applications.
Our current plan is to deliver it only as a demo.
>
> Would it be possible to update the JEP with all the CLI options? That 
> would be useful for review and also useful for those invoking it with 
> the ToolProvider API.
Done.
>
> If I read the webrev correctly then it adds two modules, one with the 
> jpackager tool and the other with an API. It would be useful to get a 
> bit more information on the split. Also I think the name of the API 
> module and the package that it exports needs discussion to make sure 
> that the right names are chosen.
Yes - though we are currently using jdk.packager.services, we are open 
to other suggestions as the name for these. "jdk.packager.runtime" has 
also been suggested.
>
> -Alan
/Andy