Hi, On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 2:31 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 16:45:39 -0400 > Alexander Aring <aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Alexander! > > > > This patch adds basic java bindings for libtracecmd. It currently > > supports very basic handling of parsing trace-cmd recorded trace files. > > There might of course additional improvements regarding swig bindings and > > the memory handling. E.g. in javas builtin iterator for-each handling > > everything will keep in memory. The license for the high-level java > > bindings jar file is LGPL-2.1 and is the same as libtracecmd. > > > > The author of this patch created a java application that uses those java > > bindings to trace locks and represent them in graphical GANTT diagram, > > see [0]. > > > > You need to set the JAVA_HOME environment variable to let the Makefile know > > that it builds the java bindings. This is somehow standard in the java world > > as replacement for pkg-config or similar. There should no trace-cmd java > > dependency, the recommended way should be to provide a kind of trace-cmd-java > > package from your distribution containing the tracecmd.jar and > > libctracecmdjava.so. This package would have then a java dependency to > > e.g. OpenJDK, that I was using to test those bindings for. > > > > The author is not a swig expert but it works as it currently is. Also > > the author did not hit issues because memory _yet_. Those are beginning > > experimental bindings and can be changed/improved in future. > > > Are you "the author"? > yes. > Could you rephrase this better? > > Like: > > "There may be better ways to do this with swig, but this appears to work as > is, as there were no issues because of memory _yet_." > > That is, please try to rewrite the change log without referring to yourself. > okay. > > > > [0] https://gitlab.com/netcoder/dlm2slog2 > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .gitignore | 4 + > > Makefile | 60 ++++++- > > java/Makefile | 39 +++++ > > java/TraceCmd.java | 236 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > java/TraceCmdEvent.java | 277 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > java/TraceCmdException.java | 16 ++ > > java/TraceCmdField.java | 104 +++++++++++ > > java/ctracecmdjava.i | 180 +++++++++++++++++++ > > java/example/Makefile | 7 + > > java/example/TraceCmdExample.java | 33 ++++ > > 10 files changed, 953 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 java/Makefile > > create mode 100644 java/TraceCmd.java > > create mode 100644 java/TraceCmdEvent.java > > create mode 100644 java/TraceCmdException.java > > create mode 100644 java/TraceCmdField.java > > create mode 100644 java/ctracecmdjava.i > > create mode 100644 java/example/Makefile > > create mode 100644 java/example/TraceCmdExample.java > > > > I'm not a swig nor Java expert, and will likely not even test this code. > But I'm happy to include it if it doesn't break anything that I do test. > But if anyone complains of breakage, I'll simply point them to you ;-) > > Are you OK with that? > > Hmm, I should add a MAINTAINERS file to add people that support different > portions of trace-cmd. > I already created a new project trace-cmd-java [0]. This will static link against libtracecmd and their dependencies. At the end it produces a binary blob for the java bindings. The advantage here is that I have full control over the used version of libtracecmd and their dependencies. I would like to go this way and see how it goes. Meanwhile I can do more testing and cleanups. I may come back again to bring it upstream. - Alex [0] https://gitlab.com/netcoder/trace-cmd-java
|