Tim Ellison wrote
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.
ok, I can do that, I did not mean to create a problem :)
we reorganized (renamed) the test suite for a better understanding,
that's why I uploaded the whole thing, but I can submit a delta.
which would be the procedure for me to send the delta? create a new
JIRA with just the changes to the previous code? clasify it as "classlib"?
Daniel
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
