New candidate JEP: 336: Deprecate the Pack200 Tools and API

[Peter]

It's also worth mentioning that pack200 is the preferred format for 
Eclipse P2 repositories.

This isn't about webstart and applets, it's going to have an impact, 
developers may be hesitant to adopt new language features that aren't 
supported by the pack200 format.

The timing isn't great, given we don't have compatibility between the 
various module systems at this time.  I mean you can't use jrt as an 
OSGi bundle yet, can you?

When we can use jrt for other module systems, then this makes a lot more 
sense.

Thank you for listening.

Peter.

On 10/06/2018 9:41 AM, Peter wrote:
> Could this tool be supported by the community, separate from the Java 
> release cycle?
>
> We'd certainly adopt it over at Apache if you'd consider relicensing it?
>
> Only since IPv6 adoption has in increased, has it been practical to 
> use distributed peer to peer computing over the internet.   This isn't 
> just for clients like java webstart.
>
> Some recent developments in our software (an evolution / refactoring 
> of Jini):
>
>    * IPv6 Multicast discovery (including global multicast announcement,
>      but not request, to avoid DOS).
>    * Https discovery
>    * A safe lookup service, allows authentication and delayed
>      unmarshalling of service proxy's.
>    * A security focused reimplementation of Java Serialization.
>    * RFC3986 URI support.
>    * An Invocation Layer Factory (AtomicILFactory) that utilises secure
>      deserialization, and supports OSGi and other modular environments,
>      class resolution is determined by ClassLoader's, codebase
>      annotations are no longer used for determining class visibility,
>      only to located and download code.   AtomicILFactory is used by
>      Jini Extensible Remote Invocation - based on JSR 76 and JSR78
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter.
>
> On 9/06/2018 7:05 PM, Peter wrote:
>> On 7/06/2018 6:54 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/336
>>>
>>> - Mark
>>
>> Hmm, a bit dissapointing, I would have liked to see its support 
>> continued.  Small and compact jar files are still important for 
>> distributed systems, although now we tend to maintain local mirror 
>> repositories, it's a change we'll have to live with I guess.
>>
>> How long before it will be removed completely?
>>
>> We ran tests on Java 9 pre releases, but haven't migrated from Java 8 
>> yet.
>>
>> Peter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>