I'd like to propose that we choose what we judge to be the best RMI
implementation, and the best math implementation now so we can move
forward, with the understanding that anyone interested can continue to
work to merge the additional contributions into whatever was chosen.
We then get out of the "cross patch between HARMONY-Y and HARMONY-X"
stuff...
I don't mind keeping rmi1, rmi2, rmi3, math1, math2, etc as long as we
have "rmi" and "math" which are understood to be the ones we're moving
with at this moment. it's kinda confusing right now...
Thoughts?
geir
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.)
In this JIRA, I modified the build ant files to support a property,
'hy.rmi.module', which defaults to 'rmi'. I did this so that, if we
integrate the Intel implementationas modules/rmi-intel, developers can
easily build/test the different implementation just by overriding the
property on the ant command line. For example:
ant -f make/build.xml -Dhy.rmi.module=rmi-intel
It would be quite trivial to do the same for the math implementations
(and crypto I suppose). If we were to do this, perhaps the process of
analysis and creation of a combined implementation could be done within
the project? In public and with more potential contributions.
What do you think?
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
