On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 13:11:15 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> make/common/modules/LauncherCommon.gmk line 162:
>>
>>> 160: -framework ApplicationServices \
>>> 161: -framework Cocoa \
>>> 162: -framework Security, \
>>
>> What happened to all of these? Were they n
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:31:04 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> We need to raise the abstraction of the SetupBuildLauncher API, to prepare
>> for static launchers. We should specify the desired outcome, not what flags
>> we should add. This can be seen as the last part of
>> [JDK-8141444](https://bu
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 16:27:30 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> We need to raise the abstraction of the SetupBuildLauncher API, to prepare
> for static launchers. We should specify the desired outcome, not what flags
> we should add. This can be seen as the last part of
> [JDK-8141444](https://b
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 16:27:30 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> We need to raise the abstraction of the SetupBuildLauncher API, to prepare
> for static launchers. We should specify the desired outcome, not what flags
> we should add. This can be seen as the last part of
> [JDK-8141444](https://b
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 22:00:09 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> I'm not convinced this level of abstraction makes things better. It adds
> quite a bit of overhead for adding additional customization options for when
> adding new launchers. Could you elaborate more on why this is needed?
I could have
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 21:57:38 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> We need to raise the abstraction of the SetupBuildLauncher API, to prepare
>> for static launchers. We should specify the desired outcome, not what flags
>> we should add. This can be seen as the last part of
>> [JDK-8141444](https://bu
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 16:27:30 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> We need to raise the abstraction of the SetupBuildLauncher API, to prepare
> for static launchers. We should specify the desired outcome, not what flags
> we should add. This can be seen as the last part of
> [JDK-8141444](https://b
