Sian January wrote:
ASM might be a good candidate. I haven't looked closely to see if it
provides everything we need, but it was apparently designed to be as small
and as fast as possible, which would be good for pack200. It's under a BSD
license - would that be ok for us?
Yes.
(http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html)
We would will still have to keep BCEL 5.2 while Yoko depends on it, but I
don't see why we can't use something different for pack200 and any other
Harmony uses.
Agreed.
Regards,
Tim
On 19/07/2008, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project isn't
going anywhere.
-Nathan
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again. I had a
conversation
with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it seems
very
unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future. There
is
apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no ongoing
development apart from that. There is some interest in testing a release
candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's anyone
available to build one.
In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing an
non-release build into Harmony?
Thanks,
Sian
[1]
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01034.html
On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new release
:)
2008/6/12, Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to see
there
that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily
switch
to
unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release
was
2
years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of
years
due
to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very
high. Also
the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't
affect
that
much of the class library.
However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is
unlikely,
but
as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I will
do
that
first.
Thanks,
Sian
On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
> We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
> status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch
to
> bleeding sources..
>
> SY, Alexey
>
> 2008/6/12, Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest
released
> > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the
Java
5
> class
> > file features, which is making it complicated to implement
pack200
(and
> also
> > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have
> one). There
> > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think
there's
much
> active
> > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information
about
when
> a
> > possible 5.3 might be released.
> >
> > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available
source for
> > BCEL. Does that sound possible?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sian
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
with
number
> > 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
Hampshire
PO6
> 3AU
> >
>
--
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
PO6
3AU
--
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
