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

[Bradford Wetmore]

On 4/30/2020 12:28 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> 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.

Hmmm...I'll have to try that next time.

>>          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.

This works for me, because I know about it.  But for newbies, it's not 
always obvious.  There was talk about removing JDK_FILTER a while ago, 
but it's incredibly useful to avoid excess builds.  Glad it's still here.

When I get a few minutes, I'll try to update/resend my semi-annual email 
with the latest info.

Brad

>> 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