[PATCH] 8218268: Javac treats Manifest Class-Path entries as Paths instead of URLs
Donald Kwakkel
dkwakkel at gmail.com
Wed Mar 13 21:38:03 UTC 2019
Attached patch with tests so first the bug for java11 can be fixed and
backported.
Would be nice if someone can guide me how to continue with this and/or
can reply on my previous questions.
Op di 5 mrt. 2019 om 07:11 schreef Donald Kwakkel <dkwakkel at gmail.com>:
>
> > On 02/28/2019 01:06 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > > On 28/02/2019 20:58, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> > >> Looking at the revised JAR specification, approved in [1], it is
> > >> disappointing that the spec contains text which is specific to
> > >> a JAR file being used in a classloader:
> > >>
> > >> |The resulting URLs are inserted into the search path of the class
> > >> loader opening the context JAR immediately following the path of the
> > >> context JAR. Any duplicated URLs are omitted.|
> > >>
> > >> That text would seem not to apply to javac and other tools that may wish
> > >> to process the class files in a JAR file.
> > > That should be fixed as it should apply at compile-time too.
> > >
> > > -Alan
> >
> > |Agreed it might be good to fix it if possible. All the preceding text
> > is good, and can be handled by javac. The only questionable bit is the
> > text "Any duplicated URLs are omitted" which could be moved up a bit in
> > the spec to a new paragraph, and maybe rephrased to use "ignored"
> > instead of "omitted". If that were done, all the stuff about class
> > loaders could be taken as non-normative text.
>
> So if I am correct the answer to Question 2 is: Yes, behavior must be the same.
>
> What are the next steps to take for this? And can someone also answer my
> other questions?:
>
> Question 1: Where can I find the tests for these changes?
> Question 2: Where should the common code for this be located?
> Question 3: Is it an idea to first implement below patch and backport
> that, and in addition as new ticket implement the new behaviour also
> for javac?
> Question 4:Is this they way to do it, or is there a better way to
> provide debug information to users running javac?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 8218268.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 8407 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/attachments/20190313/22fd0784/8218268-0001.patch>
More information about the core-libs-dev
mailing list