Daniel, I've started with trying to run the unit tests on reference imlementation, and some tests failed.
So the question is, are those tests implementation specific or not, and whether there're some expected failures that should occur on RI? Vasily -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:39 PM To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [rmi] package comparison Vasily, We've reviewed and improved (code and documentation) our test suite for rmi, I've created a new JIRA http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-473 with the latest version of it. There you will find 3 diferent types of tests: - Unit Test - Http Tunneling test - Distributed Integration Test toghether with a PDF with explanations and instructions to run them. Hope this helps, Daniel > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Zakharov, Vasily M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org> > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 3:33 PM > Subject: RE: [rmi] package comparison > > > Daniel, > > I was going to run your tests against our implementation, and it looks > like there's a lot of tests in the package, but I found no documentation > on how to run them. Could you please instruct me on how your test suite > works and how can I run it? > > Thank you! > > Vasily > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April > 17, 2006 7:38 PM > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI > framework) > > Vasily, > a couple of things about package comparison: > > a) java 5.0 vs 1.4.2 > Our rmi package was developed according to 5.0 rmi spec, and > it takes full advantage of 5.0 new features (like java.util.concurrent) > Since Harmony classlib and VMs are still in 1.4.2 we deployed > a 1.4.2 version of our package in which we removed the 5.0 > dependencies. There is obviously a performance penalty > paid by the 1.4.2 release of the package. > You can find both versions of the packages at > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-211 > > b) compatibility with reference implementation > within our contribution you will find a complete set of test cases > (source code and documentation for each). We run these test cases > against our package before contributing it, so I guess one way to > move further is to cross run test cases (you run ours and we run > yours). What do you think? > > c) performance analysis and comparison > I believe the first step here is to get along about which is the > workload or set of applications that represent a "real" use of rmi > package. I see a big challenge here... > > I'll wait for your comments, > > Daniel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Zakharov, Vasily M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org> > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 1:17 PM > Subject: RE: Contribution of RMI framework > > > Hi, Mikhail, > > Regretfully, the method-to-method comparison would hardly be effective > with RMI, as it's a highly integrated component. > > 80% of implementation is hidden in non-public API, and some components > (e. g. RMIC) have no public API at all. So it's hard to plug just one > public method from one implementation to another without modifying > non-public code - and non-public code could have (and probably does > have) very different structure in different implementations. > > What we really can do is try to run both these implementations and > compare them for conformance to the specification, compatibility with > reference implementation, maybe stability, performance, visual code > quality etc. I'm now planning to do some of these, so we'd get some > results pretty soon. > > Vasily > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mikhail Loenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 7:53 AM > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Contribution of RMI framework > > I think we need compare contributions method by method to assemble > the best classlib > > Thanks, > Mikhail > > 2006/4/14, Daniel Gandara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Vasily, >> good to know that there is someone out there who has also >> been working on rmi; I believe we'll have a lot to share and discuss >> about it. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Daniel >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Zakharov, Vasily M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:53 PM >> Subject: Contribution of RMI framework >> >> >> Hi, all, >> >> I would like to announce the next code contribution to Harmony project >> on >> behalf of Intel corporation. This contribution contains the >> implementation >> of RMI framework. >> >> The archive with this contribution can be found at: >> >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-337 >> >> The Remote Method Invocation (RMI) framework enables an object in one >> virtual machine to call methods of an object in another one, to create >> applications distributed on various Java virtual machines on the same >> or different hosts. >> >> For more information please see the documentation contained in the >> bundle. >> >> The code is a result of efforts of Intel Middleware Product Division >> team. >> One should be able to run this code with a 1.4+ compatible JRE/VM (was >> tested using commercial VMs). No classes require special support from >> the VM. >> All code is pure Java. The implementation is done according to Java > 1.4 >> specification of RMI. >> >> The archive contains the README file that explains the building and >> running >> process for this code. If any additional comments or clarifications > are >> needed, feel free to contact me. I will be happy to answer all > questions >> about this contribution and to participate in its further >> development/maintenance and integration into Harmony. >> >> Vasily Zakharov >> Intel Middleware Product Division >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
