2007/4/26, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
And we can do this ourselves...
thanks for volunteering! Thanks, Mikhail
2007/4/26, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > What we need I think is completeness metrics. Since those differences > that are caused by newer specs are OK, they don't affect completeness. > > So the real API completeness might be higher than what we see now. > Having the real picture would help us to first stick those really unimplemented > classes remained and second better position our state > > So it's good to have both: compatibility that Stuart is currently measuring > and completeness to what we want to achive. > > Thanks, > Mikhail > > 2007/4/26, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > > well, let's resume discussion whether Harmony must contain implementation > > > of the endorsed specs of the same version as RI or may contain a newer > > > version > > > > > > Tim, could you please comment on that? > > > > Only to say that the SE spec allows for us to implement a later version > > of these endorsed external specifications; however, Stuart is measuring > > compatibility to Sun's implementation, not compliance. We should expect > > to see a difference to the extent that the Corba code is incompatible > > with previous versions. > > > > Regards, > > Tim > > > > >
