Compressing class files in the module library

[Hinkmond Wong]

On 11/10/2011 4:25 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 11:49, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>
>> So we will always be creating module library images that use 
>> compression when we build. Do we need an option or environment 
>> variable to override this? I'm just wondering if you could see a 
>> scenario where compression wouldn't be desirable by default.
> The default build isn't changed, it requires building with 
> COMPRESS_MODULE_LIBRARY=true to enable. In time I would expect options 
> like this to be subsumed or implied by other build options.
>
>> :
>>
>> I understand the reasoning behind the option name -9 'compress 
>> better', from the module library point of view, but this gives the 
>> impression that the level of compression can be selected -0 -> -9 ( 
>> or that it is using the best compression available) when really I 
>> don't think it can be, right? The pack200 API doesn't seem to give 
>> this fine grain level of control over the compression level (or maybe 
>> I just missed it), which would be nice.
> -9 was an opening bid until we find something better (jmod create -C 
> -L mlib isn't too bad).  Suggestions welcome.

In order to keep monitoring that the Base Module is meeting the <10MB 
max static footprint size, we probably should keep at least one of the 
default builds at -9 to have an automated post-build action warn when 
the size of the Base Module has exceeded the 10MB max threshold.


Thanks,
Hinkmond