Tim Ellison wrote: > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >> Tim Ellison wrote: >>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >>>> Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>> Nathan Beyer wrote: >>>>>> I've checked in my proposal for the java.util.concurrent module at >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/s >>>>>> andbox/juc-proposal. >>>>> You didn't just check in a proposal, you also checked in >>>>> Doug Lea et al's code. Nobody should commit other people's code into >>>>> svn this way. >>>> The code is under public domain license, so there should be no problem >>>> doing it since Doug et al produce no builds, and they suggested we do >>>> this. >>> (not trying to be provocative, just trying to understand) >>> >>> "they" = the concurrency authors? >>> "do this" = produce builds or check the code into our repository? > > Did I get this right?
Sorry - I missed this - "they" really was Doug, and "do this" is "take the code". Checking it in simply is good practice for peace of mind. > >>>> it's also in our sandbox, and we're not redistributing it yet. >>>> >>>>> Was there a reason to create .../classlib/trunk/sandbox? wouldn't >>>>> .../classlib/sandbox make more sense? >>>> We already had the sandbox under /trunk >>> No we didn't. >>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/sandbox/?view=log&pathrev=421111 >>> >>> Perhaps it was created in the trunk by mistake. >> Oh, right. Sorry - there was a sandbox in enhanced/trunk which is what >> I thought it was checked into... > > So does anyone object to the proposed code being moved out of the > enhanced subtree while we stare at it, thereby preserving our definition > of 'enhanced'. I sort of do because we are utterly inconsistent about this, but if you look at my other message, if we just shove this into /standard/ the whole problem seems to magically go away anyway, so go ahead. > >>>>> I see copying the code as a one-way operation. We can hope to track >>>>> updates to the original code thoroughly, but I don't see any fixes made >>>>> in Harmony making it back directly into Doug's repository. >>>> Why not? We just offer them to Doug, and he can accept or reject. >>> It strikes me as a strange model. If there is a well-run, active >>> project with compatible license elsewhere I'm struggling to see why we >>> would not just join in there, and all enjoy the fruits of the combined >>> work <g>. Maybe this was discussed as part of the suggestion from Doug? >> Doug just suggested that we'd be well served using his code since it's >> public domain and the definitive implementation. >> >> If there is a well-run, active project with compatible license >> elsewhere, please point it out. As far as I know, this is the only >> implementation out there, and is why it's taken and used by IBM, BEA, >> Apple and Sun in the same way we're proposing. > > (IBM does not source the code directly from there, but that is a > different matter) > >> Why not just "enjoy the fruits" of what's being offered as public domain >> by arguably the world's top expert on the subject? While we have lots >> of talent around here, I'd be very surprised if we could do better. > > No arguments from me, that was the point that I was making too. Let's > work with that project where we need to do so, and take their code as a > dependency for Harmony. That's what we're doing. > >>>>> Is there a reason why we want to fork this code? I'd rather we worked >>>>> with Doug (contributing directly to his project to make it more widely >>>>> usable etc). >>>> Tim, isn't this what we discussed? This isn't a fork in the community >>>> sense, it's what amounts to a "read only" copy of the code for purposes >>>> of building, but tracking what Doug does? We've been very clear about >>>> that. >>> Do you think it is reasonable to work with that group to make the code >>> usable by Harmony as well as Sun? >>> >> Yes, of course, although it seems usable now... > > Not without the modifications that nathan has been working on. We want to avoid modifying their code. > >>> I guess the alternative is that we replicate Sun's internal APIs if we >>> want to make the incoming code read-only (and presumably put it into the >>> depends/ directory). >> I don't understand the bit about the depends directory, but yes, I think >> that using this code as-is would require us to implement >> sun.misc.Unsafe, and I do think it's a reasonable thing to suggest to >> Doug that a neutral package is chosen for this.... like >> "org.apache.harmony.Unsafe" :) > > Now we are talking ;-) In fact, if Sun want to publish the API I'm even > prepared to give up the o.a.h. bit <g> That works for me too, although the joy of seeing "harmony" in a Sun VM package dep would be a hoot... > > <snip> > >>>>>> * Determine the best place to integrate the TCK source, which is also >>>>>> available at Doug Lea's site. >>>>> Are you serious? Why would we copy the TCK into Harmony too?! >>>> Because that isn't the TCK, but simply testcases? >>> I haven't checked, I took Nathan at his word. >> They are labeled as TCK tests, but by definition, the TCK only comes >> from the Spec lead. >> >> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/test/tck/ >> >> So from our POV, while this is code that is used in the TCK, it's not >> the TCK, and if we accept the public domain terms, we should be free to >> use them to augment our test suite. > > I agree (modulo the general 'taking code' discussion underway). > > <snip> > >>> I thought we were trying to reach a conclusion which is why I was >>> surprised to see the code appear. >> We are still trying to reach a conclusion, actually two of them - the >> techincal conclusion, and the process/legal one. >> >> I think having the code around to stare at will make the technical >> conclusion easier (and my first comment is that we shouldn't be >> modifying Doug' stuff, even just to change package name of atomic support). > > The code has always been around, but whatever. If having it local helps > then I'm fine with it being in the standard area of the repository for > reference. > > Perhaps we should have the discussion about modifying the concurrency > code for interaction with the VM / class library over on the > concurrency-interest list? That's very reasonable, but I think that getting it to work as a proto using the work that Nathan as done and other help would be beneficial, as we can then go to them with working code and a good argument as to why they need to do this. > >> At the same time, we can resolve the legal/process issues... > > Yep. if we decide that we can take an unmodified binary-only then this > becomes much simpler too; but that is undecided as yet. > > p.s. I'm logging off for ~4 days so will be quiet for a bit. > > Regards, > Tim > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
