On 24 May 2006 at 12:50, "Mikhail Loenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
This is fine with me but, being slightly pedantic, I think that's the second step. The first step is to do the same restructure that I did with the itc 1.4 rmi when I moved it to modules/rmi. That is, make rmi3 build with: ant -Dhy.rmi.module=rmi3 -f make/build.xml Regards, Mark. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
