Are there plans to have an option for jextract to create an optimized binding?

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

On 09/03/2023 11:46, Christoph Läubrich wrote:
> Hi Maurizio,,
>
> that already looks promising!
>
> Would be cool if jextract could even automate this, so it finds the 
> symbols from existing class files?
>
> I can think about the following:
>
> 1) I generate all bindings
> 2) I have my code and test finished, and run jextract again, passing 
> it my jar file
> 3) I get a binding with only things required.
>
> because for a complex binding I can think its quite hard to find out 
> what I don't care about.

I think this is not impossible -  that said, I think the jextract tool 
should provide primitive knobs, which are expressive enough to let 
developers do what they want. For instance, the jar-analyzer tool you 
describe could also be built on top of jextract.

Ideally, I think it would be nice if, one day, IDEs had some kind of 
integration for this: the extraction process is interactive, and I think 
that jextract would benefit greatly from some kind of UI. There's only 
so much we can capture via simple command line options.

Maurizio


>
> Am 09.03.23 um 12:18 schrieb Maurizio Cimadamore:
>> Hi Christoph,
>> note that jextract already supports a filtering mechanism. The basic 
>> usage is described here:
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openjdk/jextract*filtering-symbols__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!NU_jGOsWk3eJe3kZW2eDc6W9aq6KhmLkOhY78Z7IH6iyWhIw6zT4bTtp_duQ_061rh7ybJcHWGE-vbehtkYce9DViH2B$ 
>>
>> That is:
>>
>> 1. you can run jextract in a way so that it dumps all the symbols it 
>> could find during its execution (--dump-includes=<filename>)
>> 2. you can then edit the generated file, and drop all the symbols 
>> your application doesn't care about
>> 3. you can pass the edited file back to jextract, as an "argfile" 
>> e.g. "@<filename>"
>>
>> This will only generate bindings for the things you care about.
>>
>> Hope this helps
>>
>> Maurizio
>>
>>
>> On 09/03/2023 11:05, Christoph Läubrich wrote:
>>> Hi Panama Devs,
>>>
>>> I hope the mailinglist is the right place for such 
>>> questions/discussions/ideas, as the github repository has not 
>>> enabled Github-Discussions.
>>>
>>> jextract is doing a great work, but for some libs it produces a very 
>>> very large result ( ~ 3000 files or more), I therefore wonder if it 
>>> would be possible to have jextract passing some code (e.g. a jar) 
>>> using the binding and then it generates an optimized binding that 
>>> only contains the functions/constants that are actually used in the 
>>> java code?
>>>
>>> thank in advance,
>>> Christoph