Uploaded image for project: 'JDK'
  1. JDK
  2. JDK-8047305

JEP 238: Multi-Release JAR Files

    Details

    • JEP Type:
      Feature
    • Exposure:
      Open
    • Subcomponent:
      jar
    • Scope:
      SE
    • Discussion:
      core dash libs dash dev at openjdk dot java dot net
    • Effort:
      M
    • Duration:
      M
    • Alert Status:
       Green
    • JEP Number:
      238

      Description

      Summary

      Extend the JAR file format to allow multiple, Java-release-specific versions of class files to coexist in a single archive.

      Goals

      1. Enhance the Java Archive Tool (jar) so that it can create multi-release JAR files.

      2. Implement multi-release JAR files in the JRE, including support in the standard class loaders and JarFile API.

      3. Enhance other critical tools (e.g., javac, javap, jdeps, etc.) to interpret multi-release JAR files.

      4. Support multi-release modular JAR files for goals 1 to 3.

      5. Preserve performance: The performance of tools and components that use multi-release JAR files must not be significantly impacted. In particular, performance when accessing ordinary (i.e., not multi-release) JAR files must not be degraded.

      Motivation

      Third party libraries and frameworks typically support a range of Java platform versions, generally going several versions back. As a consequence they often do not take advantage of language or API features available in newer releases since it is difficult to express conditional platform dependencies, which generally involves reflection, or to distribute different library artifacts for different platform versions.

      This creates a disincentive for libraries and frameworks to use new features, that in turn creates a disincentive for users to upgrade to new JDK versions---a vicious circle that impedes adoption, to everyone's detriment.

      Some libraries and frameworks, furthermore, use internal APIs of the JDK that will be made inaccessible in Java 9 when module boundaries are strictly enforced. This also creates a disincentive to support new platform versions when there are public, supported API replacements for such internal APIs.

      Description

      A JAR file has a content root, which contains classes and resources, as well as a META-INF directory which contains metadata about the JAR. By adding some versioning metadata to specific groups of files the JAR format can encode, in a compatible way, multiple versions of a library for different target Java platform releases.

      A multi-release JAR ("MRJAR") will contain the main attribute:

      Multi-Release: true

      declared in the main section of the JAR MANIFEST.MF. The attribute name is also declared as a constant java.util.jar.Attributes.MULTI_RELEASE. Like other main attributes the name declared in the MANIFEST.MF is case insensitive. The value is also case-insensitive, but there must be no preceding or trailing white space (such a restriction helps ensure the performance goal is met).

      A multi-release JAR ("MRJAR") will contain additional directories for classes and resources specific to particular Java platform releases. A JAR for a typical library might look like this:

      jar root
        - A.class
        - B.class
        - C.class
        - D.class

      Suppose there are alternate versions of A and B that can take advantage of Java 9 features. We can bundle them into a single JAR as follows:

      jar root
        - A.class
        - B.class
        - C.class
        - D.class
        - META-INF
           - versions
              - 9
                 - A.class
                 - B.class

      In a JDK that does not support MRJARs, only the classes and resources in the root directory will be visible, and the two packagings will be indistinguishable. In a JDK that does support MRJARs, the directories corresponding to any later Java platform release would be ignored; it would search for classes and resources first in the Java platform-specific directory corresponding to the currently-running major Java platform release version, then search those for lower versions, and finally the JAR root. On a Java 9 JDK, it would be as if there were a JAR-specific class path containing first the version 9 files, and then the JAR root; on a Java 8 JDK, this class path would contain only the JAR root.

      Suppose later on in the future Java 10 is released and A is updated to take advantage of Java 10 features. The MRJAR may then look like this:

      jar root
        - A.class
        - B.class
        - C.class
        - D.class
        - META-INF
           - versions
              - 9
                 - A.class
                 - B.class
              - 10
                 - A.class

      By this scheme, it is possible for versions of a class designed for a later Java platform release to override the version of that same class designed for an earlier Java platform release. In the example above, when running on an MRJAR-aware Java 9 JDK, it would see the 9-specific versions of A and B and the general versions of C and D; on a future MRJAR-aware Java 10 JDK, it would see the 10-specific version of A and the 9-specific version of B; on older or non-MRJAR-aware JDKs it would only see the root versions of all.

      JAR metadata, such as that found in the MANIFEST.MF file and the META-INF/services directory, need not be versioned. An MRJAR is essentially one unit of release, so it has just one release version (which is no different from a normal JAR, distributed say via Maven Central), even though internally it contains multiple versions of a library implementation for use on different Java platform releases. Every version of the library should offer the same API; investigation is required to determine whether this should be strict backwards compatibility where the API is exactly the same (byte code signature equality), or whether this can be relaxed to some degree without necessarily enabling the introduction of new enhancements that would blur the notion of one unit of release. This may imply, at a minimum, that a public class present in a release-specific directory should also be present in the root, though it need not be present in an earlier release directory. The run-time system will not verify this property, but tooling can and should detect such API compatibility issues, and a library method may also be provided to perform such varification (for example on java.util.jar.JarFile).

      Ultimately, this mechanism enables library and framework developers to decouple the use of APIs in a specific Java platform release version from the requirement that all their users migrate to that version. Library and framework maintainers can gradually migrate to and support new features while still carrying around support for the old features, breaking the chicken-and-egg cycle so that a library can be "Java 9-ready" without actually requiring Java 9.

      Details

      The following components of the JDK will be modified in order to support multi-release JAR files.

      • The JAR-based URLClassLoader must read selected versions of class files as indicated by the running Java platform version. The module-based class loader introduced with Project Jigsaw will require similar modifications.

      • The protocol handler for the jar URL scheme and java.util.jar.JarFile class must select the appropriate version of a class from a multi-release JAR.

      • The Java compiler (javac), via the underlying JavacFileManager and ZipFileSystem APIs, must read selected versions of class files as specified by the -target and -release command-line options. The tools javah, schemagen, and wsgen will leverage the underlying changes to JavacFileManager and ZipFileSystem.

      • The Java Archive tool (jar) will be enhanced so that it can create multi-release JAR files.

      • The JAR packing tool (pack200/unpack200) must be updated (see JDK-8066272).

      • The javap tool must be updated to enable selection of versioned class files.

      • The jdeps tool will require modifications to display version information and follow version specific class file dependencies.

      • The JAR specification must be revised to describe the multi-release JAR file format and any related changes (e.g., possible additions to the manifest).

      Compatibility

      By default the behaviour of java.util.jar.JarFile and the jar scheme protocol handlers will remain the same. It is necessary to opt-in to construct a JarFile pointing to a MRJAR for version selection of entries. Likewise it is necessary to opt-in for jar URLs (see next section for details).

      JarFile instances created by the runtime for class loading will opt-in and create instances that are configured to select entries according to the version of the running Java platform. Such as JarFile instance is referred to as being runtime versioned.

      Class loader resources

      A resource URL, produced by a class loader, identifying a resource in a MRJAR will refer directly to a versioned entry (if present). For example for a versioned resource, foo/baz/resource.txt:

      URL r = loader.getResource("foo/baz/resource.txt"); 

      the URL ‘r’ may be:

      jar:file:/mrjar.jar!/META-INF/versions/9/foo/baz/resource.txt

      rather than:

      jar:file:/mrjar.jar!/foo/baz/resource.txt

      This approach is considered the least disruptive option. Changing the structure of resources URLs is not without risk (e.g. a new scheme or an appended fragment). Legacy code may process URL characters directly, rather than parsing the URL and correctly extracting the components. While such URL process is incorrect it was considered preferable to not breaking such code.

      Modular multi-release JAR files

      A modular multi-release JAR file is a multi-release JAR file that has a module descriptor, module-info.class, in the root at the top, just like a modular JAR file (see the Packaging: Modular JAR section of JEP 261). In addition modular descriptors may be present in versioned areas. Such versioned descriptors must be identical to the root module descriptor, with two exceptions:

      • A versioned descriptor can have different non-transitive requires clauses of java.* and jdk.* modules; and

      • A versioned descriptor can have different uses clauses, even of service types defined outside of java.* and jdk.* modules.

      The reasoning here is that these are implementation details rather than parts of a module's API surface, and that one may well want to change them as the JDK itself evolves. Changes to non-public requires of non-JDK modules are not allowed. If that is necessary then new version of the module is required (at least increasing it's version number) and this is a different kind of compatibility problem, and one that's beyond the scope of MRJARs.

      A multi-release modular need not have a module descriptor at the located root. In this respect a module descriptor would be treated no differently to any other class or resource file. This can ensure that, for example, only Java 8 versioned classes are present in the root area while Java 9 versioned classes (including the module descriptor) are present in the 9 versioned area.

      Classpath and modulepath

      A modular JAR can be constructed such that it works correctly on the classpath of a Java 8 runtime, the classpath of a Java 9 runtime, or the modulepath of a Java 9 runtime. The situation is the same for a modular multi-release JAR file (which in addition to the module-info.class other classes may be compiled for the Java 9 platform).

      If a module descriptor does not declare some packages as exported, and therefore public classes in those packages are private to the module, then when the corresponding JAR file is placed on the module path the classes will not be accessible. However, if the JAR file is placed on the classpath then those classes will be accessible. This is an unfortunate consequence of supporting the classpath and modulepath.

      As a consequence the public API for multi-release JAR file may be different when placed on the classpath compared to when placed on the module path. Ordinarily the jar tool when constructing a multi-release JAR file will, on a best effort basis, fail if any observed differences in the public API are detected. However, when constructing a modular multi-release JAR file it is proposed the jar tool output a warning if public API differences are a result of module private classes being accessible when the JAR file is placed on the classpath.

      Multi-release jars and the boot loader

      Multi-release JARs are not supported by the boot loader (for example, when a multi-release JAR file is declared with the -Xbootclasspath/a option). Such support would complicate the boot loader implementation for what is considered a rare use-case.

      Alternatives

      A common approach is to use a static reflective check to determine if an API feature is present or not and accordingly select an appropriate class that respectively depends on that feature or not. The reflective cost is incurred at class initialization and not every time the dependent feature is used. A Java platform release is selected for compilation with the source and target flags set to a lower release to generate class files compatible with that lower release. This approach is often augmented with tools such as Animal Sniffer to check for API incompatibilities, where in addition to enforcing API compatibility code can be annotated to state whether it depends on a later Java platform release. There are a number of limitations with this approach:

      1. The reflective checks need to be carefully maintained.

      2. It is not possible to utilize newer language features.

      3. If a platform release API feature is removed (perhaps an internal API) then dependent code will fail to compile.

      "Fat" class files were considered, where a class may have one or more methods targeted to different Java platform versions. This was deemed too complicated in terms of the language and runtime features required to support such method declarations and dynamic selection.

      Method handles (invokedynamic) cannot be used because of the need to maintain binary compatibility.

      Risks and Assumptions

      It is anticipated that the production of MRJARs is primarily compatible with existing popular build tools and therefore IDEs that support such tools, but the developer experience could be improved with enhancements.

      The source layout and building of an MRJAR file can be supported by Maven using a multi-module project. For example, see this example Maven project that can produce a, currently rudimentary, MRJAR file. There would be a sub-project for the root and specific Java platform releases, and a sub-project to assemble the aforementioned sub-projects into an MVJAR. The assembly process could be enhanced, perhaps using a specific Maven plugin, leveraging the same features as the jar tool to enforce backwards compatibility.

      The design and implementation of the runtime processing of MRJARs currently assumes that a runtime uses the URL class loader or a custom class loader leverages JarFile to obtain platform-specific class files. Runtimes whose class loaders use ZipFile to load classes will not be MRJAR aware. Popular application frameworks and tools, such as Jetty, Tomcat, and Maven, etc., need to be checked for compatibility.

      Dependences

      The enhanced JAR-file format under consideration for the Java Platform Module System will need to take multi-release JAR metadata into account.

      JEP 247 (Compile for Older Platform Versions), which supports compiling against older versions of the platform libraries, may aid build tools in the production of multi-release JAR files.

        Issue Links

        1.
        JDK 8 Multiversion Jar Runtime Support Sub-task Closed Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         
        2.
        Test task: Create tests to check jarsigner work with multi-version jar Sub-task Resolved Amanda Jiang 2016-12-16
         
        3.
        Test task: Create tests to check Appletviewer works with MV jar files Sub-task Closed Felix Yang 2015-10-23
         
        4.
        Tracks CCC process for System properties to configure runtime support for multiversion jar files Sub-task Closed Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         
        5.
        JDK 9 multi-release enabled jar tool Sub-task Resolved Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         
        6.
        Test task: Create java web start and fx deployment tests on MV jar files Sub-task Resolved Maksim Semenov (Inactive)  
         
        7.
        Test task: create plugin tests on MV jar files Sub-task Resolved Andrey Saenkov (Inactive)  
         
        8.
        Test task: forward port MV jar files deployment tests to JDK 9 Deployment WS Sub-task Resolved Stephen Hu (Inactive) 2016-10-30
         
        9.
        Test task: Create tests for new JarFile API related to multi-release jar files Sub-task Resolved Felix Yang 2016-12-30
         
        10.
        JDK 9 runtime changes to java.util.jar to support multi-release jar files Sub-task Closed Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         
        11.
        JDK 9 changes to ZipFileSystem to support multi-release jar files Sub-task Closed Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         
        12.
        Update javap to be multi-release jar aware Sub-task Closed Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         
        13.
        Update jdeps to be multi-release jar aware Sub-task Resolved Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         
        14.
        Update schemagen to be multi-release jar aware Sub-task Closed Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         
        15.
        Update javah to be multi-release jar aware Sub-task Closed Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         
        16.
        Update wsgen to be multi-release jar aware Sub-task Closed Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         
        17.
        Implement Multi-Release jar aware JavacFileManager for javac Sub-task Closed Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         
        18.
        Add a multi-release jar validation mechanism to jar tool Sub-task Resolved Steve Drach (Inactive)  
         

          Activity

          Hide
          alanb Alan Bateman added a comment -
          I don't think the zipfs provider (jdk.zipfs module) will be impacted, it just treats the contents of a zip/JAR as a file system, the contents should not matter.
          Show
          alanb Alan Bateman added a comment - I don't think the zipfs provider (jdk.zipfs module) will be impacted, it just treats the contents of a zip/JAR as a file system, the contents should not matter.
          Hide
          kshefov Konstantin Shefov added a comment - - edited
          Will this feature work with Java Plugin (applets) and Java Web Start (JNLP)? I mean that if we try to run jnlp script pointing to MV-jar containing main class with "javaws", will it run the proper version?
          Show
          kshefov Konstantin Shefov added a comment - - edited Will this feature work with Java Plugin (applets) and Java Web Start (JNLP)? I mean that if we try to run jnlp script pointing to MV-jar containing main class with "javaws", will it run the proper version?
          Hide
          mr Mark Reinhold added a comment -
          The description text still mentions a number of issues pending
          investigation. If any of these have been resolved, please update
          the text accordingly before we target this JEP.
          Show
          mr Mark Reinhold added a comment - The description text still mentions a number of issues pending investigation. If any of these have been resolved, please update the text accordingly before we target this JEP.
          Hide
          psandoz Paul Sandoz added a comment -
          The JEP has been updated to present the known list of components that require updating. The last remaining known investigation is around backwards compatibility, this is still to be resolved and requires some more analysis and careful thought.
          Show
          psandoz Paul Sandoz added a comment - The JEP has been updated to present the known list of components that require updating. The last remaining known investigation is around backwards compatibility, this is still to be resolved and requires some more analysis and careful thought.
          Hide
          psandoz Paul Sandoz added a comment -
          FC Extension Request

          Multi-release jar support has some dependencies on the module system, namely with respect to module class loaders and multi-release modular jars. While the design mostly settled additional time is required to get these aspects correct and implemented.

          The JarFIle and URL class loader API requires some minor revisions. This area is awash with legacy assumptions and needs to be carefully modified to ensure compatible and performant behaviour.

          Additional time is also required to ensure relevant tooling supports the processing of multi-release jars.

          Estimated completion: 2016/9/1
          Show
          psandoz Paul Sandoz added a comment - FC Extension Request Multi-release jar support has some dependencies on the module system, namely with respect to module class loaders and multi-release modular jars. While the design mostly settled additional time is required to get these aspects correct and implemented. The JarFIle and URL class loader API requires some minor revisions. This area is awash with legacy assumptions and needs to be carefully modified to ensure compatible and performant behaviour. Additional time is also required to ensure relevant tooling supports the processing of multi-release jars. Estimated completion: 2016/9/1
          Hide
          alanb Alan Bateman added a comment -
          JDK-8146486 (and sub-tasks) is tracking the issues related to modular JARs as multi-release JARs. The runtime support for modular JAR as multi-release has been in JDK 9 since jdk-9+118 (it went in as part of a refresh of the module system).
          Show
          alanb Alan Bateman added a comment - JDK-8146486 (and sub-tasks) is tracking the issues related to modular JARs as multi-release JARs. The runtime support for modular JAR as multi-release has been in JDK 9 since jdk-9+118 (it went in as part of a refresh of the module system).

            People

            • Assignee:
              psandoz Paul Sandoz
              Reporter:
              briangoetz Brian Goetz
              Owner:
              Paul Sandoz
              Reviewed By:
              Alan Bateman, Brian Goetz, Paul Sandoz, Steve Drach (Inactive)
              Endorsed By:
              Brian Goetz
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              21 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Due:
                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:
                Integration Due: