RFD: Should jextract be extracted from the JDK?

[Eirik Bjørsnøs]

Sorry Maurizio,

It's not your understanding that is lacking, it is mine. I did not get the
news.

Mea culpa for not understanding the current situation properly.

Thanks,
Eirik

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 2:41 PM Maurizio Cimadamore <
maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> not sure I understand your question correctly.
>
> But if you are referring to the fact that jextract should *not* be part
> of the JDK, please note that the FFM API does _not_ include jextract.
> The jextract tool is instead made available in a standalone repository:
>
> https://github.com/openjdk/jextract
>
> For which binary snapshots are also provided here:
>
> https://jdk.java.net/jextract/
>
> (this change happened roughly an year ago [1]).
>
> Cheers
> Maurizio
>
> [1] - https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/panama-dev/2022-March/016632.html
>
>
> On 25/03/2023 18:05, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'll raise this periodic (?) question for discussion, but first I want
> > to make it clear I have no opinion myself.
> >
> > Here is the question in question:
> >
> > Should jextract be extracted from the JDK? If so, would it make sense
> > to do it now rather than later?
> >
> > I'm asking this because I remember this being presented as an open
> > question early in the introduction of project Panama. As time has
> > passed by, maybe we have learned something which could influence this
> > discussion?
> >
> > There seems to be an increasing number of questions and concerns
> > related to jextract in OpenJDK, perhaps containing them in a separate
> > release cycle would do good?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eirik.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/core-libs-dev/attachments/20230326/15c91c4e/attachment.htm>