Mark Hindess wrote:
On 17 May 2006 at 12:30, "Daniel Gandara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Mark Hindess wrote:
>
> Daniel,
>
> I've just contributed a JIRA,
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-471
> that integrates the ITC rmi implementation as modules/rmi. (The jsr14
> version. Only the code at the moment, I creating the scripts/patches
> for the tests next.)
We've been working on improvements to the rmi test suite,
I've contributed that at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-473
(I created a new JIRA since previous one HARMONY-211 was closed-)
so please take that test suite.
Thanks for the heads-up. I just saw the JIRA messages. (I notice it
includes all the code again and is classified as a contribution. But
I assume this is just a derivative work of the previous contribution
rather than a new contribution? That is we don't need to wait for
another vote.)
you are right, my mistake, it is a derivative work, I should have classified
it as classlib or something like that. I'll try to change that...
Integrating the tests was proving interesting. Have you been following
the discussion of the test naming/layout conventions? The latest
proposal is here:
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html
I was having a little difficulty in (quickly) figuring out which tests
are implementation-independent (api) tests. Or indeed which tests will
run stand-alone without any infrastructure being configured. Perhaps
you could help? I don't really like the idea of integrating code
without at least some tests that everyone can run.
rmi is kinda complex at this point. rmi is distributed "in nature" so
some infraestructure setup is needed to run meaningful tests involving
at least a client and a server; furthermore a given process must be
done to export objects, register them and then get clients use them.
Only JUnit test will run stand-alone; which in the case of rmi
do not say too much about the package... but anyway, unit tests
are there so lets put them toghether with the code.
Junits from on our suite are those named:
- ar.org.fitc.test.rmi
- ar.org.fitc.test.rmi.activation
- ar.org.fitc.test.rmi.server
- ar.org.fitc.test.rmi.registry
- ar.org.fitc.test.rmi.dgc
In the meantime, I'll take a look at the new JIRA.
Daniel Gandara
BTW: we are a bunch of Daniels here at Cordoba :)))
;-)
Regards,
-Mark.
regards,
Daniel
>
> On 17 May 2006 at 11:19, "Daniel Fridlender" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> After a discussion we had a few weeks ago in this forum on the
>> different implementations of java.math donated to Harmony
>> (Harmony-(39+380) and Harmony-199) we (ITC) decided to voluteer for
>> the task of integrating them into a single implementation which would
>> benefit from the best features of Harmony-39, 380 and 199.
>>
>> We will consider comparing on a method-by-method level but also on
>> ideas level so that the new implementation will probably require
>> re-programming good ideas from the existing implementations. In the
>> case of BigInteger we will also compare the benefits of the different
>> internal representations.
>>
>> Right now we are analysing the two implementations. Once we are done
>> with this analysis we will make it public and propose a way to proceed
>> towards an integration.
>>
>> BTW, we had problems patching Harmony-380 over Harmony-39, it attempts
>> to erase non-existing lines. Did we miss something? Is there any
>> other intermediate patch that we have missed?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Daniel Fridlender
>> ITC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
