Add first java source code and gyp/ant changes to build java code.

base/android/java/java.gyp

+# Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
+# Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
+# found in the LICENSE file.
+
+{
+  'targets': [
+    {
+      'target_name': 'base_java',
+      'message': 'building base java sources',
+      'type': 'none',
+      'actions': [
+        {
+          'action_name': 'base_java',
+          'inputs': [
+            '<(DEPTH)/base/android/java/base.xml',
+            '<!@(find . -name "*.java")'

[Yaron, 2012/02/29 00:58:19]

I wonder if we should be explicitly specifying java files. At least that's how
cc files are handled in Chromium.

[John Grabowski, 2012/02/29 01:01:29]

Part of the reason for that in Chromium is so the files show up in generated
projects (e.g. visual studio projects) for browsing.  That doesn't apply to our
use of Makefiles.  In addition, the "don't list them all" model seems to honor
concepts expressed in java in general (e.g. with ant).

[Yaron, 2012/02/29 01:04:43]

Ok.

[navabi, 2012/02/29 01:05:06]

I'm not sure what the answer is here.  Currently, the ant file compiles every
java file in this directory tree.  Thus, if we explicitly list the java files
here, I think we would need to have the same list explicitly listed in the ant
file.  Otherwise, it could get confusing, especially for people that don't
really know ant.  They may not list a java file here, expecting it not to
compile, and then not understand why the ant action is compiling that file (or
something like that).

I think for now we should leave it like this.  If we want to explicitly specify,
we should find a solution that is consistent with the ant build file (e..g the
action here actually generates the ant file, which will list source files
instead of compile everything in the directory).

[Ryan Sleevi, 2012/02/29 01:49:03]

As a drive by, one of the reasons this is done (listing all the files) is to
keep GYP time low (similar to Ninja's goals)

Using <!@() syntax vs explicitly listing them has no affect on the generators
(such as MSVC) - if you globbed on .cc, they would still all individually show
in Visual Studio, as they do today. My understanding of the history is that the
transition from the early days of SCons/Hammer -> GYP, one of the concerns was
file-globbing (the SCons-y) was becoming non-performant.

See https://groups.google.com/d/topic/gyp-developer/-4sbLC5OfBk/discussion

[joth, 2012/02/29 08:24:36]

It seems like the gyp-y answer would be to have gyp generate the ant file.

I like it as it is to get a bare-bones .java build in place for the reasons we
discussed, but before going too far down this path we may want to review if that
would be possible.

+          ],
+          'outputs': [
+            '<(DEPTH)/base/android/java/dist/lib/chromium_base.jar',

[Steve Block, 2012/03/26 12:02:58]

It seems a little ugly to write build output to the source tree. Is there a way
to avoid this? If not, can we add this (and the .class files) to .gitignore?

+          ],
+          'action': [
+            'ant',

[Yaron, 2012/02/29 00:58:19]

Getting ant on the bots is also a pre-requisite for landing this, right?

[John Grabowski, 2012/02/29 01:01:29]

Yes.  I've updated the 'how to setup a bot' doc and installed ant explicitly on
the FYI bot.

[Yaron, 2012/02/29 01:04:43]

Right, but what about developers? They'll need to manually install ant too or
they won't be able to build. I'm ok with landing this now but we should do this
in parallel (i.e. update install-build-deps-android.sh)

[navabi, 2012/02/29 01:05:06]

Yes. That is correct.

+            '-buildfile',
+            '<(DEPTH)/base/android/java/base.xml',
+          ]
+        },
+      ],
+    },
+  ],
+}