Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 233786

Summary: Bundle up the unpack200.jar from harmony
Product: [Eclipse Project] Equinox Reporter: Pascal Rapicault <pascal>
Component: p2Assignee: P2 Inbox <equinox.p2-inbox>
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX QA Contact:
Severity: enhancement    
Priority: P3 CC: aniefer, david_williams
Version: 3.4Keywords: helpwanted
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: PC   
OS: Windows XP   
Whiteboard:

Description Pascal Rapicault CLA 2008-05-23 22:01:47 EDT 
Harmony just announced the availability of their implementation of unpack200 available for 1.4. We should look at providing it as one of our processing step.

Below are some info that I got on the Harmony ml about their unpack200 implementation:
Pascal Rapicault wrote:
> This is really exciting. From the eclipse point of view it means that we 
> will now be able to provide unpacking capability to all of our users 
> independently of their VM.

Cool -- let us know if you have any problems (or successes <g>).

> I have a few questions:
> - Does this implementation run on a 1.4 VM?

It should.  It is compiled with the 1.4 source flag (so there are no 
uses of generics etc), but it is compiled against our 5.0 libraries, so 
I suggest you recompile it against a 1.4 JDK to check there are no uses 
of 5.0 APIs that need fixing.

> - Is it easily consumable independently of all of harmony? (e.g. a 
> standalone jar)

Yep, it is built into pack200.jar.

Regards,
Tim
Comment 1 Andrew Niefer CLA 2008-05-26 13:11:59 EDT 
We should also investigate if we can use the pack200 as well.  The jarprocessor currently exec's the pack200.exe.  If I remember correctly we had memory issues when using the pack200 api directly.  Hopefully these issues won't exist with the harmony implementation.
Comment 2 Pascal Rapicault CLA 2008-05-26 14:20:37 EDT 
pack200 is not yet available.
Comment 3 David Williams CLA 2015-04-16 23:52:26 EDT 
Similar bug 161865 was closed as "won't fix", and suggest we do the same for this one. 

If anyone disagrees, feel free to reopen.