Subject: bug#9088: Java support

From: "John Calcote" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:20:03 -0600

Jack,

-----Original Message-----
From: automake-bounces+john.calcote=[email-masked]
[mailto:automake-bounces+john.calcote=[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jack
Kelly
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:34 AM
To: Ralf Wildenhues
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: bug#9088: Java support

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[email-masked]>
wrote:
> * Jack Kelly wrote on Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 06:13:58AM CEST:
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:55 AM, tsuna wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> >> As my java foo is pretty weak, I'm not sure how to handle jar 
>> >> manifests, jar entry points, or other jar/javac subtleties and
advanced features.
>> >> Suggestions welcome.
>> >
>> > You can create the manifest manually fairly easily.  Here's an 
>> > example in the project I'm in the process of autotoolizing:
>> > https://github.com/stumbleupon/opentsdb/blob/6059488f38fc8a51d426d6
>> > 972eee6fdd1033d851/Makefile#L207
>>
>> Perhaps there should be support for a foo_jar_JARADD, that by analogy 
>> to _LDADD, that specifies additional files to be included in the jar?
>
> Why would it have to be a new primary, instead of just reusing _LDADD?

Because, IMO, it's conceptually different. The output's being assembled with
`jar', not `ld'.

Actually...conceptually, a jar is identical to a library identical: A
library is an archive of objects. A jar is an archive of objects. Jar's
happen to be compressed as well, but that's irrelevant. Conceptually,
they're the same.

I would argue in favor of different names for political reasons. :) There's
still a fairly large rift between C/C++ and Java developers. 

--john