You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com> on 2007/09/23 09:55:04 UTC
[pack200] Merge code back into archive?
I sent a while arguing for the pack200 code to be a separate bundle,
and therefore set up with its own source trees in the archive module.
The plan was that the pack200 bundle could be used in other OSGi
engines on its own outside of Harmony.
The plan didn't work out quite as expected in that it took longer to
get going than planned, and since Java 1.4 is nearing EOL it probably
doesn't make sense for the pack200 to be available as an OSGi bundle
in its own right. In any case, I ended up letting the implementation
slide and now it's been taken over by others.
So it might be a good time to consider folding it back into the main
archive source folders/locations. Sound like a good idea?
Alex
Re: [pack200] Merge code back into archive?
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Pascal Rapicault wrote:
> In fact, if it was a separate download, I could see it being part of the
> Equinox provisioning work to bring the benefits of pack200 to the crowd
> running non java 5 JREs.
Yep, let's get it working first then figure out how we can make it
useful to the widest audience.
Regards,
Tim
> From: Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>
>
> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>
> Date: 09/23/2007 03:55 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [pack200] Merge code back into archive?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Alex Blewitt wrote:
>> I sent a while arguing for the pack200 code to be a separate bundle,
>> and therefore set up with its own source trees in the archive module.
>> The plan was that the pack200 bundle could be used in other OSGi
>> engines on its own outside of Harmony.
>>
>> The plan didn't work out quite as expected in that it took longer to
>> get going than planned, and since Java 1.4 is nearing EOL it probably
>> doesn't make sense for the pack200 to be available as an OSGi bundle
>> in its own right. In any case, I ended up letting the implementation
>> slide and now it's been taken over by others.
>>
>> So it might be a good time to consider folding it back into the main
>> archive source folders/locations. Sound like a good idea?
>
> I will let those who have taken over it's implementation make the
> decision, but (always being one to express an opinion <g>) I see no harm
> in it continuing as a separate module while the functionality is
> completed. It would be trivial to make it 1.4 compatible, roll it into
> ARCHIVE, or make it a fragment bundle later.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
Re: [pack200] Merge code back into archive?
Posted by Pascal Rapicault <Pa...@ca.ibm.com>.
In fact, if it was a separate download, I could see it being part of the
Equinox provisioning work to bring the benefits of pack200 to the crowd
running non java 5 JREs.
My 2 cents,
PaScaL
From: Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Date: 09/23/2007 03:55 PM
Subject: Re: [pack200] Merge code back into archive?
Alex Blewitt wrote:
> I sent a while arguing for the pack200 code to be a separate bundle,
> and therefore set up with its own source trees in the archive module.
> The plan was that the pack200 bundle could be used in other OSGi
> engines on its own outside of Harmony.
>
> The plan didn't work out quite as expected in that it took longer to
> get going than planned, and since Java 1.4 is nearing EOL it probably
> doesn't make sense for the pack200 to be available as an OSGi bundle
> in its own right. In any case, I ended up letting the implementation
> slide and now it's been taken over by others.
>
> So it might be a good time to consider folding it back into the main
> archive source folders/locations. Sound like a good idea?
I will let those who have taken over it's implementation make the
decision, but (always being one to express an opinion <g>) I see no harm
in it continuing as a separate module while the functionality is
completed. It would be trivial to make it 1.4 compatible, roll it into
ARCHIVE, or make it a fragment bundle later.
Regards,
Tim
Re: [pack200] Merge code back into archive?
Posted by Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>.
I don't really have a preference either way on this, but it seems to make
sense to keep it as its own module for now while it's being developed, and
then review the decision at a later date. I wouldn't want to move it all
into archive, only to discover that we need to move it back again. I agree
with Pascal that there are other scenarios where people may want to use it
on its own, as well as just the 1.4 VM scenario.
Thanks,
Sian
On 23/09/2007, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alex Blewitt wrote:
> > I sent a while arguing for the pack200 code to be a separate bundle,
> > and therefore set up with its own source trees in the archive module.
> > The plan was that the pack200 bundle could be used in other OSGi
> > engines on its own outside of Harmony.
> >
> > The plan didn't work out quite as expected in that it took longer to
> > get going than planned, and since Java 1.4 is nearing EOL it probably
> > doesn't make sense for the pack200 to be available as an OSGi bundle
> > in its own right. In any case, I ended up letting the implementation
> > slide and now it's been taken over by others.
> >
> > So it might be a good time to consider folding it back into the main
> > archive source folders/locations. Sound like a good idea?
>
> I will let those who have taken over it's implementation make the
> decision, but (always being one to express an opinion <g>) I see no harm
> in it continuing as a separate module while the functionality is
> completed. It would be trivial to make it 1.4 compatible, roll it into
> ARCHIVE, or make it a fragment bundle later.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
--
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: [pack200] Merge code back into archive?
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Alex Blewitt wrote:
> I sent a while arguing for the pack200 code to be a separate bundle,
> and therefore set up with its own source trees in the archive module.
> The plan was that the pack200 bundle could be used in other OSGi
> engines on its own outside of Harmony.
>
> The plan didn't work out quite as expected in that it took longer to
> get going than planned, and since Java 1.4 is nearing EOL it probably
> doesn't make sense for the pack200 to be available as an OSGi bundle
> in its own right. In any case, I ended up letting the implementation
> slide and now it's been taken over by others.
>
> So it might be a good time to consider folding it back into the main
> archive source folders/locations. Sound like a good idea?
I will let those who have taken over it's implementation make the
decision, but (always being one to express an opinion <g>) I see no harm
in it continuing as a separate module while the functionality is
completed. It would be trivial to make it 1.4 compatible, roll it into
ARCHIVE, or make it a fragment bundle later.
Regards,
Tim