Re: Dropping octave.jar from the source distribution

[PhilipNienhuis]

Ernst Reissner wrote
> On 08/21/2017 09:30 PM, PhilipNienhuis wrote:
>> Mike Miller-4 wrote
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Octave's Java system includes a JAR file of functions that are required
>>> for converting types between Octave and Java.
>>>
>>> Since Java was merged in, we have been distributing the JAR file along
>>> with the source, presumably so that users don't have to compile the Java
>>> bytecode and recreate the JAR themselves.
>>>
>>> However, in reality, make always compiles the Java sources and rebuilds
>>> the JAR archive, whether the file is distributed to users or not.
>>>
>>> So in practical terms, distributing octave.jar with Octave's source
>>> distribution is useless, and no one has reported any problems with
>>> having to compile the sources and build the JAR archive themselves.
>>>
>>> I think we should just stop distributing the JAR file, always rebuild
>>> it, and remove the "-source 1.3 -target 1.3" options (see bug #51803).
>>>
>>> Any objections?
>> To build octave.jar a JDK is required. AFAIK the rest of the Java
>> subsystem
>> (ov-java.cc etc) cannot be built if there's no JDK on the target system,
>> so
>> there's no use to distribute a tiny part of octave's Java support (=
>> octave.jar) if the rest can't built anyway.
>>
>> So as far as that reasoning goes, I see no real advantage to have
>> octave.jar
>> in the source distribution.
> Yes, definitively true.
> With removing the switches
> 
> "-source 1.3 -target 1.3" 
> 
> I have some doubts: dropping target has only advantages, although small
> ones.
> The source version is not that using the java interface,
> but it is the one used to implement it.
> I suspect that one has to change the JNI version also.
> It is set in libinterp/octave-value/ov-java.cc only and is currently
> vm_args.version = JNI_VERSION_1_2
> We could do JNI_VERSION_1_6
> 
> 
> Java 1.3 is quite old and is not yet typesafe so that I would like to
> have at least java 1.6 to maintain the java interface.
> I myself use java 1.8 but I think, there is no real advantage and 1.6
> would do.
> 
> On the other hand, if the user shall compile the sources also the java
> sources himself, we depend on his compiler version.
> I think we should not force the user to use something beyond 1.6.
> To ensure this, I suggest to restrict ourselves to maintain the
> interface also in java 1.6
> and the best way to do so, is to replace '-source 1.3' by '-source 1.6'.

Sure, Java 1.3 is IMO even ancient. I used 1.6 several years ago and also
use 1.8 now; so IMO even 1.6 might be considered old.

Philip



--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Dropping-octave-jar-from-the-source-distribution-tp4684575p4684636.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.