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.)
I disagree -- i think the simplest thing would be for Daniel to submit the delta rather than another version of the original contribution. Regards, Tim > 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. > > 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. > >>> 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] > > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
