Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Restore creation of dtfj, dtfjview & traceformat jars #65

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 15, 2018

Conversation

keithc-ca
Copy link
Member

  • Enables basic commands in jdmpview.
  • Content in those jars forms part of the API to an SDK. Used, for example, by HealthCenter.
  • Include only necessary OpenJ9 classes in tools.jar.
  • Revert many changes to jdk/make/CreateJars.gmk by moving as much as possible to closed/make/CreateJars.gmk.
  • Use default APP_CLASSPATH for jdmpview, jextract and traceformat.
  • Add missing IBM copyright notice.

* revert many changes to jdk/make/CreateJars.gmk
* use default APP_CLASSPATH for jdmpview, jextract and traceformat
* add missing IBM copyright notice

Signed-off-by: Keith W. Campbell <keithc@ca.ibm.com>
@jdekonin jdekonin merged commit 7580d49 into ibmruntimes:openj9 Mar 15, 2018
@keithc-ca keithc-ca deleted the ext-jars branch March 15, 2018 20:51
@pshipton
Copy link
Member

I'm not convinced this is the correct way to go. Although having the jars in the ext directory is how it works for IBM Java 8, its not the correct way to do things. Putting these jars in the ext directory incurs some costs. Both in the disk size of a JRE (which shouldn't contain these development tools), and also in class loading performance at runtime. Any class lookup based on the system classloader will be a little slower because of these additional jar files are in the ext directory.

@DanHeidinga
Copy link
Contributor

@pshipton Do you have an alternative proposal for how to handle this? If you do, can you create an issue to track the discussion?

@pshipton
Copy link
Member

@DanHeidinga I think it was correct the way it was originally before this PR was merged. I suppose we shouldn't just revert this PR since moving changes to closed/make is desired. I've opened #67 and eclipse-openj9/openj9#1539.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants