Ok - i'll have a look at ASM and report back. On 21/07/2008, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >>> >> >> >> >>
-- 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
