Request for Review: Java SE 8 Compact Profiles

[Kelly O'Hair]

On Dec 21, 2012, at 5:01 PM, David Holmes wrote:

> On 22/12/2012 10:11 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2012, at 3:27 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> On JarReorder.java, 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.
>> 
>> Can we add a comment as to that being the reason for the if(false)?  Maybe file a separate Issue to fix it someday,
>> or maybe toss the whole ball of JarReorder wax someday. ;^)
> 
> Okay I'll add a comment and comment out the line and see if there is an existing CR to revisit jarreorder.

OK.

> 
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> But they aren't plain text files, right?
> 
> What is a plain text file ??? They look like make variable declarations, they also look like property definitions. I liken these files to the version.numbers file that happen to contain stuff that looks like makefile variable declarations - should they be .gmk files too?

I guess what I'm saying is that they have a particular syntax, it's not arbitrary text.
Leave them as is, we can deal with it later.

> 
>>> 
>>> These lists also get used by other tools eg javac and javadoc.
>> 
>> Do we have any convention for the file suffix on these yet? Or is the long term plan to just use .txt?
> 
> Right now it is the .txt. If we want/need to change this then now is the time as I'll have to sync this with the langtools changes. Not a huge deal to change later I suppose. But I'm not sure there is any obviously better choice.

I'd have to think about it more.  I'm fine with leaving them as .txt files for now.

> 
>>>> 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. :(
>> 
>> Yeah, might be a limited vacation for some of us.
> 
> Limited vacation, limited weekends, ... ;-)

Yup. :^(

-kto

> 
> David
> 
>> -kto
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -kto
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>