Skip to content

Add the JVM Implementation after the name of the Vendor - #140

Merged
halcyon merged 4 commits into
halcyon:masterfrom
delgurth:add-jvm-impl-after-vendor
Apr 6, 2021
Merged

Add the JVM Implementation after the name of the Vendor#140
halcyon merged 4 commits into
halcyon:masterfrom
delgurth:add-jvm-impl-after-vendor

Conversation

@delgurth

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

In order to fix #46 and #57 I've added the jvm_impl after the vendor.

Unfortunately this will break the names configured previously in .tools-versions if you had selected one of the openj9 JDK's. Not sure how you can do this backwards compatible.

@joschi

joschi commented Apr 5, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I'm not a big fan of breaking consumer again (sorry for the last time) but I also see the advantage of putting the JVM implementation into the name tag.

This being said, I think GraalVM releases (e. g. graalvm-graalvm-21.0.0.2+java11) would look a bit weird, wouldn't they?

@delgurth

delgurth commented Apr 5, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I'm not a big fan of breaking consumer again (sorry for the last time) but I also see the advantage of putting the JVM implementation into the name tag.

Unfortunately I do not see a proper way of dealing with #46 and #57 without introducing a breaking change. And my hope is that people will understand the added value of this one.

This being said, I think GraalVM releases (e. g. graalvm-graalvm-21.0.0.2+java11) would look a bit weird, wouldn't they?

Good point, missed that one :( Guess graalvm should be in the excemption list, just as hotspot. So only openj9 needs special treatment at this moment I guess?

@delgurth
delgurth marked this pull request as draft April 5, 2021 08:52
@delgurth

delgurth commented Apr 5, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@joschi changed it to only do something for openj9. This makes it fragile in case a new jvm_impl is introduced, but I'm no jq hero unfortunately.

@delgurth
delgurth marked this pull request as ready for review April 5, 2021 09:33
@halcyon

halcyon commented Apr 6, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

@delgurth tremendous work, thank you! I'll merge it once you've had a chance to resolve conflicts.

@delgurth

delgurth commented Apr 6, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@halcyon thanks. My git says I'm up to date with upstream/master and GitHub says I'm not. Will check what's going wrong in a few hours.

@delgurth
delgurth marked this pull request as draft April 6, 2021 16:55
@delgurth
delgurth force-pushed the add-jvm-impl-after-vendor branch from 87fc85c to ab06cc0 Compare April 6, 2021 17:03
@delgurth
delgurth marked this pull request as ready for review April 6, 2021 17:03
@delgurth
delgurth marked this pull request as draft April 6, 2021 17:09
@delgurth
delgurth force-pushed the add-jvm-impl-after-vendor branch from ab06cc0 to af81c35 Compare April 6, 2021 17:28
@delgurth
delgurth marked this pull request as ready for review April 6, 2021 17:34
@delgurth

delgurth commented Apr 6, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I was messing up git history. Fixed the history now for this pull request. 2 more to go.

@halcyon
halcyon merged commit 150e793 into halcyon:master Apr 6, 2021
@delgurth
delgurth deleted the add-jvm-impl-after-vendor branch April 6, 2021 20:16
delgurth added a commit to delgurth/asdf-java that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2021
adoptopenjdk-8.0.252+9.1.openj9-0.20.0 no longer exists, it's now adoptopenjdk-openj9-8.0.252+9.1.openj9-0.20.0
halcyon pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 7, 2021
adoptopenjdk-8.0.252+9.1.openj9-0.20.0 no longer exists, it's now adoptopenjdk-openj9-8.0.252+9.1.openj9-0.20.0
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.

Add support for "latest" versions

3 participants