[Enhancement] modularized Dragonwell distribution

[luchsh]

Description As from my understanding, the primary difference between Dragonwell and OpenJDK would be: Dragonwell provides some value-add features, such as Wisp, which are highly optimized and targeted for cloud-native deployment, but unfortunately for now not standardized in the OpenJDK community or accepted by Oracle.

Some users of Dragonwell, especially adopters from outside Alibaba, would like to rebuild Dragonwell from source code. For various reasons, such as different C++/C compiler dependencies, system library dependencies, static footprint requirements (different JDK profiles maybe), etc. So may I propose a new feature for Dragonwell to support a more modularized building style? by providing automake options to disable/enable non-standard features for different needs.

For example,

• one may use the following command to build his/her own JDK with ElastiHeap and Wisp support only: sh configure --enable-jvm-feature-elasticheap --with-wisp-coroutine

• And using the following command to build JDK with all the value-add features(the default mode): sh configure

• Also one may build a Dragonwell JDK with all features but JWarmUp, like sh configure --without-jwarmup

Steps to Reproduce It is not a bug, thus no steps to reproduce

Expected behavior Being able to create customized Dragonwell builds with different sets of value-add features.

JDK version jdk8 and jdk11

I do not plan to raise another issue for Dragonwell11, please note that this request is needed on Dragonwell11 as well.

Execution environment

• OS and version: Linux
• CPU model: x86, arm64

[sanhong]

Thanks for the suggestion. For the existing features, as you mentioned, for example, Wisp, JWarmup, or Multi-Tennant, etc., the requested isolation at a source code level would require tremendous refactoring work - we need further careful evaluation here.
But I would like to emphasize that the ZGC in Dragonwell11 has been backported in this way. So you can build Dragonwell11 with/without ZGC.

[luchsh]

Thank you, Sanhong! Looking forward to the evaluation progress :)

[luchsh]

@joeyleeeeeee97 I think this issue looks more like an enhancement / feature request than a mere question. Can we change the label to 'enhancement'?