Vasily,
test are not implementation specific; they were developed against the
RI and all of them are supposed to work fine with RI. I believe the
issue is due to the jre version you are using, remember that we have
always assumed Sun's J2SE 5.0 as the RI.
Daniel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zakharov, Vasily M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: [rmi] package comparison
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
