Subject: bug#9088: Java support

From: "Ralf Wildenhues" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:40:22 +0200

Hi Jack,

* Jack Kelly wrote on Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 09:33:58AM CEST:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Jack Kelly wrote on Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 06:13:58AM CEST:
> >> 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'.

This argument is attached at the wrong reply of mine, and the rationale
is not conclusive: if the concept of a jar output file were different
from a library output file, then that would be an argument in favor of
using _JARS rather than _LIBRARIES, but not one for using _JARADD rather
than _LDADD.  Also, I'm with John, in that *conceptually*, creating a
jar is virtually the same as creating a library.  It's that currently,
compiler tools don't do a good job of hiding this concept behind a
consistent implementation, but instead expose the internal details of
the language.  Much like what prompted libtool (way back when) to treat
C and C++ libraries differently (which it unfortunately still does and
has to).

_JARS has some merits when its arguments are @substed@, but with
<foo>_LDADD, automake knows exactly that it is working on a library or a
jar by virtue of looking at <foo>.

Cheers,
Ralf