I'm all for it, especially if Doug is okay with it. I made an attempt at using the code a week back and it should be fairly easy to get the majority of it in. The missing piece would be a VMI API for the atomic and lock functionality.
Would we be using the latest version from HEAD, or is there a tag we should begin with? The latest code seems to have some Java 6 classes. Would we leave them out for now, or just leave them in? -Nathan > -----Original Message----- > From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:29 AM > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: [classlib] proposal - resolution to java.util.concurrent issue > > I had a nice chat with Doug today to try to reach a conclusion regarding > j.u.c > > Given that everyone else (Sun, IBM, BEA...) seems to use j.u.c, found here > > http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi- > bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/main/java/util/concurrent/ > > I think that we'd be well-served to do so as well. It's the RI, it's > complicated, it goes w/o saying that Doug is committed to this being > right, and I'd like to have the same bugs as everyone else for now :) > > The summary of what I think we should do is simple - we take the code > from j.u.c from the above link (w/ 1 exception) into our SVN repo and > track any changes made by Doug and the jsr166 EG going forward. > > All the code is under the following terms, which are acceptable to the ASF > : > > /* > * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166 > * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at > * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain > */ > > except for one file : > > http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi- > bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/main/java/util/concurrent/CopyOnWriteArrayList. > java > > for which I understand we can get a clean replacement from the backport. > > Now, there is an issue of our clean-room rules, and I think there's a > very neat solution that would allow us to use this code w/o getting an > ACQ from the authors of j.u.c (which Doug claims is himself, assisted by > the JSR166 EG) > > The premise of our ACQ structure is that we want to ensure that people > who have worked on a non-open/non-free implementation of a > portion/module/component of Java not work on our implementation of that > portion/module/component. > > Now, given that j.u.c in Java SE 5 is the first time this functionality > has existed, it must be the case that the contributors are not > contaminated by working on another implementation, since there are no > other implementations. We can't be contaminated because there's nothing > with which to contaminate us with. > > Of course, this needs VM support, so there is work to do, but this seems > like a sane and clean way to add this functionality to Harmony classlib, > as well as build a bridge to another part of the Java SE ecosystem. > > Comments? Things that I missed? > > geir > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
