Windows: rename embedded JDK's java.exe

[laszlocsomor]

Branched from #5254 (comment).

Let's rename the embedded JDK's "java.exe" to something Bazel-specific, e.g. "bazel-server.exe".

Rationale:

• easier to find and terminate in Task Manager
• the embedded JDK should only be used for Bazel itself (Bazel on Windows: improve first-time experience #5254 (comment))

Version: Bazel 0.27.0 on Windows 10

[laszlocsomor]

@meisterT : not sure if you're the right assignee, please reassign if adequate

[laszlocsomor]

Caveat: the bazel client must be aware that java.exe may be called bazel-server.exe, and it must handle both.

[meisterT]

Since that change is an incompatible change and cannot be guarded behind a flag, I'll have to wait for the next incompatible release before I can do the change.

[philwo]

@meisterT With that approach, people will not have a migration window over some releases where they can get used to the new binary name. I'm not sure if we can ever make this change.

[philwo]

Alternatively we could ship both a java.exe and a bazel-server.exe in the binary and then use an incompatible startup flag to decide which one to execute. OK, our binary size will be double for a while, but oh the sweet backwards compatibility, I'm sure everyone will love it. 😀

[meisterT]

Having that doubled doesn't sound too bad - since at least on Linux the java binary only has 10k.

[laszlocsomor]

Why would the binary size double? We'd only copy java.exe not the other JDK files.

[laszlocsomor]

Which part of this change is incompatible?

[philwo]

@laszlocsomor True, we can just duplicate the java.exe! For a moment I thought we’d have to include two entire JDKs. 😅

[laszlocsomor]

Actually, why copy and not just rename? Nothing but that particular Bazel version should use the embedded JDK. There's nothing to be backwards compatible with.

[philwo]

Rename wouldn’t work because multiple servers can run from the same install base with different values for that incompatible flag.

[laszlocsomor]

But all of those servers are the same Bazel version. So there's no need for an incompatible flag, no?

Which part of the change is incompatible?

[meisterT]

Laszlo: the name is exposed (otherwise we would not change it). Assume someone wrote a script that (outside of bazel) uses the process name, e.g. monitors the CPU usage over time.

[meisterT]

I am not actively working on this, but would review a PR.

[sgowroji]

Hi there! We're doing a clean up of old issues and will be closing this one. Please reopen if you’d like to discuss anything further. We’ll respond as soon as we have the bandwidth/resources to do so.