Modules with platform specific parts

[Samuel Audet]

Android actually includes OpenJDK these days, still only OpenJDK 8 at 
the moment, but it is a project downstream to OpenJDK, so in my opinion 
Google should definitively be part of the discussion.

That said, it's not only Google's fault here, and let's not get into the 
politics here, but even if Android didn't bundle OpenJDK, and we had to 
install it like on other platforms such as Mac and Windows, it is still 
a platform in its own rights with its own particular characteristics 
that we need to take into account. Although it is based on Linux, the 
kernel, it is not the same "Linux" as Fedora or Ubuntu, and if OpenJDK 
is to go anywhere in the future, it has to start considering the needs 
of Android, regardless of the political issues.

Now, in the case of Android, it sounds like what you are proposing is to 
create and maintain a set of tools parallel to Android Studio, but that 
would also work with iOS, etc. Where do you see the funding come from to 
keep up with all the features of Android Studio? Even Microsoft is 
having trouble with Xamarin, their C# attempt at doing this... Frankly, 
I don't think that's the right way to go about it, but I do think that's 
the kind of discussion we need to have!

Samuel

On 9/27/21 5:38 PM, Johan Vos wrote:
> I'd be happy to see Google joining the discussion, but Android (as in the
> Java "clone")  is totally unrelated to OpenJDK so I think it is unlikely to
> see relevant input from that side.
> However, OpenJDK works great on Android-devices (and can be used to create
> Android apps and upload them to stores), so *developers* targeting those
> devices are covered.
> 
> What I hope to accomplish is to first of all get a discussion about the
> potential options for developers dealing with platform-specific (native and
> Java) code. It would be great if there was support at the specification
> level for this best-practice, but that is probably something for the longer
> term, as it will require more resources and lots of analysis, to make sure
> backward compatibility is not broken.
> 
> - Johan
> 
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:52 PM Samuel Audet <samuel.audet at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I certainly hope so! But I don't see anyone, for example, from Google
>> representing Android, so what do we hope to accomplish, exactly? Let's
>> start by making the goals clear.
>>
>> Samuel
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 16:35 Johan Vos <johan.vos at gluonhq.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 2:55 AM Samuel Audet <samuel.audet at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it wants to remain relevant, OpenJDK should really consider having a
>>>> broader discussion about this.
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Please, please, do consider fixing the JDK instead of talking about
>>>> coming up with incompatible "solutions"!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I totally agree, but I believe this is exactly what we are doing now?
>>>
>>> - Johan
>>>
>>
>