2006/5/24, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 5/24/06, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>
> 2006/5/24, Geir Magnusson Jr :
> > 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.
Hmm, I guess that 'base implementation' is implementation that locates in
modules/rmi. Right?
yes
But I resolved HARMONY-471 5 days ago and ITC implementation is now in
modules/rmi folder. Do you suggest moving it to another folder?
We now have three RMI implementations:
rmi - 1.4 implementation from ITC
rmi2 - 1.5 implementation from ITC
rmi3 - implementation from Intel
As it was discussed in the mail list (please correct me if it is no
more the case)
the only implementation interoperable with RI is rmi3.
As a first step I suggest taking it as a base - move rmi to rmi4 or
whatever and
move rmi3 to rmi.
Thanks,
Mikhail
Then we will aplly best ideas from counterparts implementations to the base.
I'd concentrate first on pulling out implementation-independent tests from
both contributions and creating RMI test suite that can be used to evaluate
both implementations.
Thanks,
Stepan.
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]
>
>
--
Thanks,
Stepan Mishura
Intel Middleware Products 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]
