Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Proposal : alternative pom to build jre with remote debugging capabilites #222

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

NPavie
Copy link
Contributor

@NPavie NPavie commented Nov 22, 2023

At first i was thinking of a "dev" profile in the build-jre pom, but it seemed easier to have a copied build file for it with just the new module added.

This is what i did for this proposal:

  • Added an alternative jre pom file to build it with jdk.jdwp.agent included, allowing to do remote debugging on it.
  • Modified the Makefile to only use this new file if a DEV variable is declared on calling make.
    (like make <anytarget> DEV=1 , else it remains the same)

It works on Windows with the embedded make.exe, so I expect it to work on MacOS and Linux too.

Having this option would help in debugging the pipeline while testing it through the word addin or the pipeline app.

(Note: both apps are already checking for the presence of the jdk.jdwp.agent module in the included jre in debug mode to allow this connection)

@bertfrees
Copy link
Member

Looks good, but I'm gonna try to remove the duplication. I don't want to maintain two almost identical pom files. I thought a "dev" profile made sense.

Perhaps the new variable could be called FOR_DEBUGGING.

NPavie and others added 2 commits December 6, 2023 16:51
Add an alternative JRE pom file to build it with jdk.jdwp.agent
included, allowing to do remote debugging on it.

Modified the Makefile to only use this file when a make is called with
`make DEV=1 ...`.
@bertfrees
Copy link
Member

@NPavie I updated the branch. Can you check if it still works for you?

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.

2 participants