You can get a brief introduction to BTI from here: http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/buildtest/index.html http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/buildtest/trunk/infra/README.txt
You can get a development introduction of BTI from here: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/buildtest/trunk/infra/SPEC.txt If you want to know more implementation details about BTI, you can refer to this document: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/buildtest/trunk/infra/dev-guide.txt I hope this will be helpful to you. 2008/4/18, Aleksey Shipilev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So, should I make the benchmark ready for running via BTI? > Are there any guidelines and criteria it should meet? > > Thanks, > > Aleksey. > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Sean Qiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What about adding a web UI for our BTI? > > I think it is natural since we have a similar one to publish our results. > > > > Just like continuum[1], it is easier to manage. > > Maybe we can get some hint from it. > > > > Anyway, BTI is worthwhile devation. > > > > [1] http://continuum.apache.org/ > > > > > > > > 2008/4/16, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On 4/16/08, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 2008/4/16, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > On 4/16/08, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > 2008/4/16, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > Is it possible to integrate into BTI? if not we can consider > the enhanced/tools/ > > > > > > > > > > > > There is one already in drlvm trunk, see > working_vm/src/test/microbenchmark. > > > > > > There is no infrastructure around, it is mere store holder for > now. > > > > > > Feel free to add benches there, they are not intended to be > > > > > > VM-specific. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would say opposite if they are DRLVM specific then it is OK to put > > > > > them to the folder. Otherwise (i.e. they are not VM-specific) we > > > > > should integrate them to BTI. > > > > > > > > > > Th point is that DRLVM workspace should contain only DRLVM specific > > > > > tests. For example, IMO DRLVM workspace is not the right place for > > > > > EHWA-API scenario. > > > > > > > > This is too radical position IMO. Absolute majority of tests in DRLVM > > > > are functional and not impl-specific, should we move them all to BTI? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, IMHO we should move them to BTI. > > > > > > The point is that any workspace (classlib/drlvm/jdktools) is not a > > > repository for a set of different suites. > > > > > > > Sometimes convenience of using and extending is more important for > > > > success. If we had appropriate infra for benchmarks I wouldn't argue, > > > > but now I'm afraid most contributors would rather leave a bench-case > > > > hanging in JIRA than dare to hack BTI. I'm happy to be proven wrong, > > > > though. > > > > > > > > > > "convenience of using and extending" is questionable for me in this > case. > > > Well, yes I agree that from position of a DRLVM developer it is more > > > convenient when EHWA-API scenario is located in DRLVM workspace - no > > > additional efforts are required to run it. But what about classlib > > > developer who wants to run EHWA-API on J9 - she/he needs to checkout > > > DRLVM workspace. Is this convenient and extensible? (Hmm, may be I was > > > wrong when I insisted on integration of LDAP scenario into BTI then > > > into classlibrary ;-)) > > > > > > Seriously, if we think that using BTI is complicated for a developer > > > then we should do our best and make it simpler and more convenient. > > > Otherwise we finish with zoo of different suites/scenarios in several > > > places. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Stepan. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Alexey > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Stepan. > > > > > > > > > > > Re integration to BTI, this would require fair amount of efforts > and > > > > > > usage model is not clear to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/15/08, Aleksey Shipilev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Tony, all! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it make sense to create special place in our repository > for > > > > > > > > storing the benchmarks like this one I've used in my > performance > > > > > > > > researches on Harmony? It would be great to have them > synchronized in > > > > > > > > repos rather than store in JIRA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Aleksey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Aleksey, > > > > > > > > > I think keep the benchmark somewhere such as JIRA is also > ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Tony Wu > > > > > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards > > Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu > > > > > > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > -- Best Regards Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu China Software Development Lab, IBM
