2006/5/24, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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.
+1
I suggest that as a base we take RMI from Intel as it seems to be interoperable with RI and take Math from ITC as it reportedly has better performance. Then we will aplly best ideas from counterparts implementations to the base. Does it work for everyone? Thanks, Mikhail
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
