RFR: JDK-8244093 Move all IDE support into coherent structure in make directory

[Jan Lahoda]

Hi Brad,

This is very similar to what I do. Some small comments inline.

On 29. 04. 20 21:02, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
> Jan,
> 
> What is your current recommended technique to use NetBeans to 
> build/edit/test OpenJDK for normal OpenJDK library developers?
> 
> After many versions of Netbeans, my current setup is to:
> 
> 1.  Do an external "exploded" build
> 
> 2.  Run Netbeans, open the src/java.base module project and any other 
> modules needed.
> 
> 3a. For OpenJDK test files under test/jdk:  Open the java.base test dirs 
> for the JTREG tests I need.  Then run "Debug Test File" to invoke JTREG
> 
> 3b. For tests not in test/jdk (external to repo):
>          1.  Add a Java platform for the exploded-build

I believe a platform for the exploded build should be added 
automatically when the project is opened. Its name is 
"<the-checkout-directory>-<configuration>", e.g. "jdk - 
linux-x86_64-server-release". If deleted, this platform should be 
re-created on next start/project open. But creating one manually works 
as well.

>          2.  Create a project, assign the platform
>          3.  Create standard Debug project.
> 
> 4.  For incremental builds, edit source file, build from the command 
> line something like:
> 
>      % make JDK_FILTER=java/security java.base-java-only

If there is something that could help here, please let me know. I am 
peeking a little at possibilities to speed up incremental build (so that 
plain "make" would be faster), but not much success so far.

> 
> Is there another way of working I'm missing?
> 
> Things have been really solid for me lately (OpenJDK/JTREG plugins not 
> needed), thanks for all your hard work on this.

Thank you for your support!

Jan

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Brad
> 
> 
> On 4/29/2020 4:06 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>> I am not sure if anyone is still using make/jdk/netbeans. Apache 
>> NetBeans does not (should not) need these config files, it supports 
>> OpenJDK modules out of the box (with some tweaks/dependencies on 
>> make/langtools/** to speed up langtools build).
>>
>> As Maurizio, there may be some need to move the "fast" langtools build 
>> more carefully. I'll try to take a look later, unless some else wants 
>> to. Although, a little independently, I wonder somewhat if there's an 
>> opportunity to further speed up the ordinary make build in incremental 
>> environment to reduce the need for a "fast" langtools build. E.g. by 
>> enhancing the current Depend javac plugin, and possibly optionally 
>> disabling the interim langtools build. This could improve incremental 
>> build behavior for other modules (like java.base or java.desktop) as 
>> well.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> On 29. 04. 20 12:36, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>> The IDE support in OpenJDK unfortunately leaves a lot to be desired. 
>>> There have been a garden variety of attempt to support a specific IDE 
>>> for a specific part of the code base, cluttered all over the code base.
>>>
>>> This patch is a first attempt go get one ring, eh..., structure, to 
>>> rule them all.
>>>
>>> I have moved all IDE project creators into the following structure:
>>>
>>> make/ide/<ide>/<part of the code>
>>>
>>> where <part of the code> is one of currently "hotspot", "langtools" 
>>> or "jdk", and <ide> is one of "vscode", "idea", "netbeans" or 
>>> "vistualstudio".
>>>
>>> This will not magically improve IDE support, but will at least make 
>>> it clearer what we have and what we are missing.
>>>
>>> Ownership of the IDE support is notoriously vague. I've cc:ed a bunch 
>>> of people who has shown interest and/or submitted fixes to some of 
>>> the IDE projects according to the hg history. I'd appreciate it if 
>>> anyone who is interested in a particular case for IDE support can 
>>> verify that it still works. I've tried my best to make sure all 
>>> targets can run without errors, but I cannot verify that the IDE 
>>> environment themselves are correct.
>>>
>>> If you know about an IDE project that is no longer relevant, and 
>>> should be removed instead of shuffled around, please let me know!
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244093
>>> WebRev: 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8244093-move-ide-support/webrev.01
>>>
>>> /Magnus