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

Support for GraalVM #195

Closed
morki opened this issue Jul 15, 2021 · 13 comments
Closed

Support for GraalVM #195

morki opened this issue Jul 15, 2021 · 13 comments
Assignees
Labels
feature request New feature or request to improve the current logic

Comments

@morki
Copy link

morki commented Jul 15, 2021

Description:
It would be nice to support GraalVM Community Edition JDK.

Justification:
It is already available in Github Actions virtual environments.

Are you willing to submit a PR?
Sorry but no, I don't have enought knowledge.

@morki morki added feature request New feature or request to improve the current logic needs triage labels Jul 15, 2021
@maxim-lobanov
Copy link
Contributor

@morki , have you tried the community action for GraalVM?
https://github.com/marketplace/actions/setup-graalvm-environment

@morki
Copy link
Author

morki commented Jul 15, 2021

Yes, but with this action we can use matrix builds for many JDKs and soon it will hopefully be support for Gradle / Maven caching here.

@overheadhunter
Copy link

Just for the record, here is a link to yet another graalvm/setup-graalvm action, provided by graalvm team.

@zharinov
Copy link

zharinov commented Feb 3, 2022

Although official setup-graalvm action definitely would handle graal-specific extensions better, is someone interested in graalvm support for setup-java anyway? I think it doesn't make too much sense to support additional GraalVM components, but I'm about to open PR that implements basic GraalVM JDK install.

@zharinov zharinov mentioned this issue Feb 13, 2022
2 tasks
@jord1e jord1e mentioned this issue Jan 15, 2023
2 tasks
@sebthom
Copy link

sebthom commented Jan 27, 2023

I am also very interested in seeing setup-java provide graalvm support, so it can be used in matrix builds to easily test it against other JDK providers.

@zharinov is willing to provide a PR implementing this, but wants a signal from the maintainers (e.g. @dmitry-shibanov @IvanZosimov @marko-zivic-93) of this repo that there actually is interest in such a contribution. can one of you guys please confirm this? thanks a lot in advance!

@IvanZosimov
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, @sebthom 👋 Thanks for the comment! We are currently investigating the license of the GraalVM JDK. As soon as we finish this process we will get back to you with additional information.

@IvanZosimov
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, @ALL 👋 Unfortunately, during the investigation it was decided not to add support of GraalVM to setup-java action. The reason for this decision is existence of the official GraalVM action: https://github.com/marketplace/actions/github-action-for-graalvm
I'm going to close this issue, if you have any question feel free to ask them.

@sebthom
Copy link

sebthom commented Mar 22, 2023

@IvanZosimov That is more than disappointing. The problem is, that even if this action is available it does not solve the usecase of matrix builds with different JDK vendors when GraalVM should be included.

This decision is also incomprehensible because someone from the community (@zharinov) even offers to implement it.

@SethTisue
Copy link

it does not solve the usecase of matrix builds with different JDK vendors when GraalVM should be included

this seems like a pretty powerful argument

@IvanZosimov
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, @sebthom and @SethTisue , thanks for the comments. You can use the above-mentioned action in a separate job, it will have the same effect as the additional member of matrix.

@sebthom
Copy link

sebthom commented Mar 23, 2023

@IvanZosimov That approach totally goes against the DRY principle. There is a reason why GitHub Action provides matrix builds. I find this reasoning not comprehensible. Based on your argumentation, there is also no reason that setup-java supports installation of Oracle JDK as there is the setup-java-development-kits-built-by-oracle action.

@acrastt
Copy link

acrastt commented Mar 23, 2023

I agree with @sebthom, if @IvanZosimov's argument is true, CI's won't exist since there is already actions in GitHub(i.e. GitHub Actions). Still why CI's exist?

@Marcono1234
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like this has actually been implemented by #501 in the meantime

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature request New feature or request to improve the current logic
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

10 participants