Check in protobuf java code and generate lite jar.

Check in protobuf java code and generate lite jar.

Since we only need the lite version of protobuf, we generate a jar file based
on includes in the maven pom.xml file for the lite profile.

BUG=158382
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=167557

[Nico, 2012-10-30 04:26:55]

pliard has been doing a lot of work in protobuf. Maybe he can comment if this is
a good approach, or if it'd be better to just add all the java files to gyp and
let gyp build the jar file.

https://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.c...
File third_party/protobuf/README.chromium (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.c...
third_party/protobuf/README.chromium:19: Note: Remember to use the lite profile
with "mvn install -P lite".
This makes it a lot harder to roll protobuf.

[nyquist, 2012-10-30 04:50:32]

http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.ch...
File third_party/protobuf/README.chromium (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.ch...
third_party/protobuf/README.chromium:19: Note: Remember to use the lite profile
with "mvn install -P lite".
On 2012/10/30 04:26:55, Nico wrote:
> This makes it a lot harder to roll protobuf.

Agreed. Sadly, the protobuf library has external dependencies such as JUnit and
EasyMock. Those are test-tools though, so we might be able to do without them.

If we check in the Java source we would have to keep the gyp/ant version of the
build up to date based on updates from the maven pom.xml.

[Nico, 2012-10-30 05:07:59]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM,  <nyquist@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.ch...
> File third_party/protobuf/README.chromium (right):
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.ch...
>
> third_party/protobuf/README.chromium:19: Note: Remember to use the lite
> profile with "mvn install -P lite".
> On 2012/10/30 04:26:55, Nico wrote:
>>
>> This makes it a lot harder to roll protobuf.
>
>
> Agreed. Sadly, the protobuf library has external dependencies such as
> JUnit and EasyMock. Those are test-tools though, so we might be able to
> do without them.
>
> If we check in the Java source we would have to keep the gyp/ant version
> of the build up to date based on updates from the maven pom.xml.

Yes. That's true for all our other 3rd-party dependencies. It works
fairly well in practice, as far as I can tell.

[nyquist, 2012-10-30 05:11:03]

On 2012/10/30 05:07:59, Nico wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM,  <mailto:nyquist@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> >
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.ch...
> > File third_party/protobuf/README.chromium (right):
> >
> >
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.ch...
> >
> > third_party/protobuf/README.chromium:19: Note: Remember to use the lite
> > profile with "mvn install -P lite".
> > On 2012/10/30 04:26:55, Nico wrote:
> >>
> >> This makes it a lot harder to roll protobuf.
> >
> >
> > Agreed. Sadly, the protobuf library has external dependencies such as
> > JUnit and EasyMock. Those are test-tools though, so we might be able to
> > do without them.
> >
> > If we check in the Java source we would have to keep the gyp/ant version
> > of the build up to date based on updates from the maven pom.xml.
> 
> Yes. That's true for all our other 3rd-party dependencies. It works
> fairly well in practice, as far as I can tell.

Okay. Sounds reasonable. I will investigate using ant directly to create the
.jar-file.

[Philippe, 2012-10-30 08:59:28]

https://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.c...
File third_party/protobuf/README.chromium (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.c...
third_party/protobuf/README.chromium:19: Note: Remember to use the lite profile
with "mvn install -P lite".
On 2012/10/30 04:50:32, nyquist wrote:
> On 2012/10/30 04:26:55, Nico wrote:
> > This makes it a lot harder to roll protobuf.
> 
> Agreed. Sadly, the protobuf library has external dependencies such as JUnit
and
> EasyMock. Those are test-tools though, so we might be able to do without them.
> 
> If we check in the Java source we would have to keep the gyp/ant version of
the
> build up to date based on updates from the maven pom.xml.

I'm also concerned about making Protobuf rolls harder.

I think we could only have the JAR files of the dependencies  which should not
change too often (junit, easymock and others if needed) and trigger the Maven
build of the Protobuf Java sources (using these JARs) from protobuf.gyp. In
protobuf.gyp we would have a first step doing a 'mvn install' for each
dependency JAR.

On the downside, this means that Maven would be required for a Chromium for
Android build (I think that's reasonable).
We might want to check it into the tree too or better pull it through DEPS (on
Android only) if possible.

What do you think?

[Nico, 2012-10-30 15:56:32]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:59 AM,  <pliard@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.c...
> File third_party/protobuf/README.chromium (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.c...
>
> third_party/protobuf/README.chromium:19: Note: Remember to use the lite
> profile with "mvn install -P lite".
> On 2012/10/30 04:50:32, nyquist wrote:
>>
>> On 2012/10/30 04:26:55, Nico wrote:
>> > This makes it a lot harder to roll protobuf.
>
>
>> Agreed. Sadly, the protobuf library has external dependencies such as
>
> JUnit and
>>
>> EasyMock. Those are test-tools though, so we might be able to do
>
> without them.
>
>> If we check in the Java source we would have to keep the gyp/ant
>
> version of the
>>
>> build up to date based on updates from the maven pom.xml.
>
>
> I'm also concerned about making Protobuf rolls harder.
>
> I think we could only have the JAR files of the dependencies  which
> should not change too often (junit, easymock and others if needed) and

Are junit and easymock necessary for the protobuf library? We don't
need to build the protobuf unit tests.

> trigger the Maven build of the Protobuf Java sources (using these JARs)
> from protobuf.gyp. In protobuf.gyp we would have a first step doing a
> 'mvn install' for each dependency JAR.
>
> On the downside, this means that Maven would be required for a Chromium
> for Android build (I think that's reasonable).

I don't think we should a dependency on maven. What do we use to
compile java files for chrome/android? Can't we use that for compiling
the protobuf java library?

> We might want to check it into the tree too or better pull it through
> DEPS (on Android only) if possible.
>
> What do you think?
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/

[Philippe, 2012-10-30 16:08:35]

On 2012/10/30 15:56:32, Nico wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:59 AM,  <mailto:pliard@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.c...
> > File third_party/protobuf/README.chromium (right):
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/README.c...
> >
> > third_party/protobuf/README.chromium:19: Note: Remember to use the lite
> > profile with "mvn install -P lite".
> > On 2012/10/30 04:50:32, nyquist wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2012/10/30 04:26:55, Nico wrote:
> >> > This makes it a lot harder to roll protobuf.
> >
> >
> >> Agreed. Sadly, the protobuf library has external dependencies such as
> >
> > JUnit and
> >>
> >> EasyMock. Those are test-tools though, so we might be able to do
> >
> > without them.
> >
> >> If we check in the Java source we would have to keep the gyp/ant
> >
> > version of the
> >>
> >> build up to date based on updates from the maven pom.xml.
> >
> >
> > I'm also concerned about making Protobuf rolls harder.
> >
> > I think we could only have the JAR files of the dependencies  which
> > should not change too often (junit, easymock and others if needed) and
> 
> Are junit and easymock necessary for the protobuf library? We don't
> need to build the protobuf unit tests.
> 
> > trigger the Maven build of the Protobuf Java sources (using these JARs)
> > from protobuf.gyp. In protobuf.gyp we would have a first step doing a
> > 'mvn install' for each dependency JAR.
> >
> > On the downside, this means that Maven would be required for a Chromium
> > for Android build (I think that's reasonable).
> 
> I don't think we should a dependency on maven. What do we use to
> compile java files for chrome/android? Can't we use that for compiling
> the protobuf java library?
> 
> > We might want to check it into the tree too or better pull it through
> > DEPS (on Android only) if possible.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/

JUnit and EasyMock should not be necessary indeed.

We don't use Maven at all at the moment. I was just concerned about maintaining
a custom Ant build file for the Java version. In practice it is probably fine.

[nyquist, 2012-11-08 22:34:52]

PTAL
All files in third_party/protobuf/java/ are untouched.
Now automatically builds a jar with the lite profile.

[Philippe, 2012-11-09 16:38:31]

On 2012/11/08 22:34:52, nyquist wrote:
> PTAL
> All files in third_party/protobuf/java/ are untouched.
> Now automatically builds a jar with the lite profile.

LGTM, thanks Tommy!

Let's see what Nico thinks.

[Nico, 2012-11-09 17:44:51]

lgtm

Only android will depend on this, this won't be built for desktop chrome, right?

http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/33016/third_party/protobuf/READM...
File third_party/protobuf/README.chromium (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/33016/third_party/protobuf/READM...
third_party/protobuf/README.chromium:32: 'javac_includes' variable in
protobuf_lite_java GYP target.
Just to confirm: The java files are from r423 too, right?

[nyquist, 2012-11-09 17:46:53]

On 2012/11/09 17:44:51, Nico wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> Only android will depend on this, this won't be built for desktop chrome,
right?

Yes, that is the idea. Android will depend on protobuf_lite_java for the
cacheinvalidation_java target.

> 
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/33016/third_party/protobuf/READM...
> File third_party/protobuf/README.chromium (right):
> 
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/33016/third_party/protobuf/READM...
> third_party/protobuf/README.chromium:32: 'javac_includes' variable in
> protobuf_lite_java GYP target.
> Just to confirm: The java files are from r423 too, right?

[nyquist, 2012-11-09 17:47:07]

http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/33016/third_party/protobuf/READM...
File third_party/protobuf/README.chromium (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/33016/third_party/protobuf/READM...
third_party/protobuf/README.chromium:32: 'javac_includes' variable in
protobuf_lite_java GYP target.
On 2012/11/09 17:44:51, Nico wrote:
> Just to confirm: The java files are from r423 too, right?

Yes, they are. Thanks for checking. Since they are from r423 too, I did not
specifically mention it.

[Nico, 2012-11-09 17:51:56]

lgtm!

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:47 AM,  <nyquist@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/33016/third_party/protobuf/READM...
> File third_party/protobuf/README.chromium (right):
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/diff/33016/third_party/protobuf/READM...
> third_party/protobuf/README.chromium:32: 'javac_includes' variable in
> protobuf_lite_java GYP target.
> On 2012/11/09 17:44:51, Nico wrote:
>>
>> Just to confirm: The java files are from r423 too, right?
>
>
> Yes, they are. Thanks for checking. Since they are from r423 too, I did
> not specifically mention it.
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/11347026/

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-11-13 05:44:36]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/nyquist@chromium.org/11347026/23052

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-11-13 05:53:46]

Retried try job too often for step(s) compile

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-11-13 20:44:12]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/nyquist@chromium.org/11347026/19068

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-11-13 21:38:35]

Sorry for I got bad news for ya.
Compile failed with a clobber build on win_rel.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_rel&nu...
Your code is likely broken or HEAD is junk. Please ensure your
code is not broken then alert the build sheriffs.
Look at the try server FAQ for more details.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-11-13 22:57:20]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/nyquist@chromium.org/11347026/19068

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-11-14 01:23:43]

Change committed as 167557