Andrey,
I see your points. I think both approaches have advantages and
disadvantages. I think it is quite hard to say which approach is
better until we play with one VM only. I still feel like introducing
one more dependence is better than spreading code which deals with
attachment among VM and TM. We really get stuck. OK, just because I
want to move forward I will do required changes to remove
vm_create_jthread from TM. I believe that will resolve all our
disagreements and the patch will be applied soon.
Thanks
Evgueni.
On 10/4/06, Andrey Chernyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/3/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/3/06, Andrey Chernyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Andrey,
> > > >
> > > > Just to be clear.... I agree with you it is more convenient if
> > > > jthread_create takes JNIEnv instead of JavaVM. It reflects that
> > > > current thread has been attached already. Do you think it makes sense
> > > > to get rid of JNIEnv and use jthread_get_JNI_env in that case?
> > >
> > > The jthread_* layer is designed like if it were a regular JNI
> > > application which is meant to be called from the Java code, hence
> > > every function on that layer receives JNIenv. We can probably get rid
> > > of the JNEnv parameter for jthread_* functions, assuming that TM can
> > > always extract JNIenv for the current thread with
> > > jthread_get_JNI_env().
> > > My only concern would be the performance - once the JNIenv is already
> > > known for the native part of the kernel classes impl, it must be
> > > cheaper to pass JNIEnv to TM as an extra parameter rather than extract
> > > it from the TLS again.
> > > Other than that, I see no strong advantages in keeping JNIEnv parameter.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regarding jthread_attach. I still didn't get your point.... Clarify it
> > > > please if you think jhread_attach should be modified.
> > >
> > > Sorry for being not clear: I think for jthread_attach, we have two
options:
> > > 1) Make JNIEnv input parameter - it must be new JNIEnv that VM
> > > pre-allocates for the new Java thread. jthread_attach would just
> > > associate it with the current thread.
> > >
> > > 2) Obtain JNIEnv via vm_attach() callback. In this case, if
> > > vm_attach() callback implementation needs to know for which JavaVM new
> > > JNIenv has to be allocated, then we'll need to add JavaVM as input
> > > parameter for jthread_attach().
> > > I think both options should be fine, (1) would probably keep TM
> > > interface a bit lighter, though (2) may look more closer to the JNI
> > > invocation API idea.
> > > So I think adding JavaVM specifically for jthread_attach may make
> > > sense given the explanation you provided earlier.
> > >
> > > The concern I would have regarding the proposed jthread_attach
> > > implementation is a call to vm_create_jthread() - this call introduces
> > > an extra dependency of TM on vmcore that I'd prefer to be avoided. In
> > > the original version, jthread_attach() was taking jthread argument of
> > > the already prepared j.l.Thread.
> >
> > I understand your concern. Unfortunately I don't see what we can do
> > here. Let me explain. In the beginning you have an unattached native
> > thread. To be able to call java code (which is required for
> > constructing j.l.Thread instance) the thread should be attached first.
> > To be specific it should be attached to VM by calling vm_attach which
> > will return a valid JNIEnv It is valid to use JNI from that moment.
> > Obtained JNIEnv can be used to execute java code and create j.l.Thread
> > instance. Since we do vm_attach in jthread_attach we need to do
> > vm_create_jthread inside jthread_atach as well.
> > Of course it can be an alternative to do vm_attach and
> > vm_create_jthread outside of TM right before jthread_attach. Sure it
> > will reduce one dependence between VM and TM. But it seems like
> > artificial action for me just because of dependency....
>
> Why do you think it is artificial? I would rather prefer not to throw
> vm_attach event from the jthread_attach() call at all than to add
> extra dependency. The idea of jthread layer is a Java face to
> hythread, it is meant to know either a little or nothing about the
> rest of VM. It may be logical to throw vm_attach call from the newly
> created thread, because there is no other way to let know VM the new
> thread is created. VM attach is a different case - VM already knows
> about new Java thread at the time of the AttachCurrentThread call.
>
> >
> > > Do you think it makes sense to replace a single jthread parameter with
> > > a variety of stuff (like thread group, name)? It seems the only
> > > purpose of at these args is to be passed back to VM for
> > > vm_jthread_create(). I would suggest to change this and try doing
> > > either of:
> > > 1) Make signature of jthread_attach with 3 args, JavaVM, jthread and the
daemon.
> > Why do you want to pass daemon to TM but thread's name and group. Just
> > because current TM doesn't need such information? What if it is
> > required to get thread name later? Say by introducing
>
> I imagine you need a daemon attribute since the TM is still managing
> the thread daemonality. TM is not managing thread name and group -
> they are all kept on the Java level, hence passing them may be
> excessive.
>
> > jthread_get_name... What will you do in that case? Let me guess you
> > will call j.l.Thread.getName. Right. Ok! In that case I see no
> > problems to call j.l.Thread.isDaemon. Do you agree? So it doesn't
>
> As I suggested earlier, the best way to handle daemonality would
> probably be in pure Java - in j.l.Thread (or j.l.VMThreadManager) or
> whatever. You already lifted it up to the jthread level, but what if
> we can go a little bit higher...
>
> > seems to be a good design to pass only part of the information to
> > jthread_atach. Lets look at the signature of AttachCurrentThread. It
> > takes exactly these three parameters (daemon, name, group) passed as a
> > structure. I was thinking about having exactly the same structure as
> > third parameter of jthread_attach but it occured to be more convinient
> > to pass them seperatly. Although I don't see strong reasons against
> > having a structure a third parameter.
>
> I see. Acually, I would love to keep the jthread_attach func-ty at the
> minimum level which will be needed to handle the only data that TM
> should be aware of. We need a formal boundary between jthread layer
> and vmcore (otherwise jthread won't have a much of sense, one may
> consider it just as a convenience set of functions in vmcore which are
> doing something with threading).
>
> >
> > > 2) Move the implementation of vm_create_jtrhead() to
> > > thread_java_basic.c - could it be written in pure JNI without using
> > > internal VM API like class_alloc_new_object()?
> >
> > Yes, this can be done but it doesn't fix the problem. You still need
> > to know about internal constructor of j.l.Thread
>
> That's bad. Given what you said, now it seems that the most preferable
> sequence for AttachCurrentThread impl still would be like:
> JNIEnv = vm_attach();
> jthread = create_jthread(JNIenv)
> jthread_attach(JNIEnv, jthread) // stores JNIEnv and Hythread into
> TLS, doesn't call vm_attach any longer.
> - this is almost what we had from the beginning...
>
> Thanks,
> Andrey.
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Evgueni
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andrey.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > > Evgueni
> > > >
> > > > On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On 9/29/06, Andrey Chernyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > On 9/29/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > Artem,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback.... find my inlined.....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Artem Aliev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Evgueni,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I got most of your changes, but still disagree with all
> > > > > > > > hythread/jthread interface changes. Could leave interface
unchanged.
> > > > > > > > See following possible solutions, that could solve the same
problems
> > > > > > > > without interface changes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) daemon attribute is a java specific. (Andrey mentioned this
already).
> > > > > > > > Could you please move it back. to the jthread layer. It is
better
> > > > > > > > to rename
> > > > > > > > hythread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads() to
> > > > > > > > jthread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads().
> > > > > > > Ok, I see no problems to move "daemon" to java layer. In that
case:
> > > > > > > 1) I will move hythread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads() from
> > > > > > > thread_init.c to one which implements java layer.
> > > > > > > 2) I will move daemon field from HyThread structure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agree?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, will do that.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) JavaVM could be retrieved from JNIEnv by
jni_get_java_vm(). So
> > > > > > > > let the jthread_create() and others to use JNIEnv (that is
passed from
> > > > > > > > java native method).
> > > > > > > > The vm_attach could get old JNI env and create new one for the
new thread.
> > > > > > > > The first JNIEnv is created in CreateVM call and could be
passed to
> > > > > > > > the first thread at startup.
> > > > > > > No, no, no. I completely disagree with that!!! Why do you like
JNIEnv
> > > > > > > but JavaVM. Why do you think that passing JavaVM instead of JNIEnv
> > > > > > > makes TM less modular? I don't see any difference here.... It
seems
> > > > > > > for me like a big big hack to grab JNIEnv from another thread and
pass
> > > > > > > it to jthread_attach to perform operations in the current thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TM needs to know JNIEnv, mainly for managing the references to
> > > > > > objects, throwing exceptions and calling run() method of a new
thread.
> > > > > > JNI spec proposes that JNIEnv is valid within the given thread, this
> > > > > > is why TM holds the JNIEnv pointer at the moment. This is why TM
likes
> > > > > > the JNIEnv.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having the JNIEnv, one is able to get JavaVM but not vise versa.
This
> > > > > > is why TM doesn't like the JavaVM :)
> > > > > I see your point. Only one note this is true for already attached
threads...
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with you that there is a design flaw that the JNIEnv is
copied
> > > > > > from the parent thread to a child thread during thread creation. I
> > > > > > think it could be resolved via vm_attach() hook - with this event,
VM
> > > > > > might tell the TM what the JNIEnv pointer for new thread should be.
I
> > > > > > think you did that by extending the vm_attach() call with the
JNIEnv**
> > > > > > argument.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is not completely clear is, why do you have to pass the JavaVM
> > > > > > forth and back, once from VM to TM, and then back from TM to VM
again?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you need to know in jthread_attach, which particular VM
vm_attach()
> > > > > > event is coming from, you could have vm_attach like
> > > > > > vm_attach(JNIEnv* currentThreadEnv, JNIEnv** newThreadEnv).
> > > > > I'm a little bit confused.....Current thread hasn't been attached yet.
> > > > > So there is no JNIEnv for it yet. How it can be passed as the first
> > > > > parameter to vm_attach()?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Then you will be always able to get the JavaVM from the JNIEnv.
> > > > > > The only difference is that you are currently doing JNIEnv->JavaVM
> > > > > > conversion in the VMThreadManager, but why can't you just do this in
> > > > > > vm_attach() without changing the interface of the TM?
> > > > > > So far JavaVM really looks like an extra knowledge that TM doesn't
> > > > > > have to be aware of.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moreover there is no JNIEnv when main thread attaches to VM. So we
> > > > > > > should either keep it as is or change original design of TM and
attach
> > > > > > > thread to VM before attaching it to TM. In that case we will have
> > > > > > > valid JNIEnv which can be passed to jthread_atatch. We need to
think
> > > > > > > over it twice before changing something....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right. For jthread_attach, JNIenv needs to be changed from being
input
> > > > > > parameter to being the output parameter. The way how JNIenv is
> > > > > > obtained by TM should be vm_attach() event.
> > > > > OK, JNIEnv is output parameter. And it obtained by vm_attach(). This
> > > > > is exactly like I do in the patch. What I don't understand is how
> > > > > jthread_attach knows to which VM the thread should be attached? Do you
> > > > > suggest calling vm_attach first to create JNIEnv it pass it to
> > > > > jthread_attach?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4) Original classlib hythread do not use hythread_library_t in
arguments,
> > > > > > > > It uses following code:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > hythread_library_t lib = GLOBAL_DATA (default_library);
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > hythread_library_t library = thread->library;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So could you please use the same mechanism and remove
hythread_*_ex >functions.
> > > > > > > Let's see if classlib's hythread needs changing first. It seems
for me
> > > > > > > such code prevents us from having multi VM.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5. You introduce more then one jni env, but still use global
variable for it.
> > > > > > > > So all changes like following:
> > > > > > > > - JNIEnv *jenv = (JNIEnv*)jni_native_intf;
> > > > > > > > + JNIEnv *jenv = jni_native_intf;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > should be like:
> > > > > > > > - JNIEnv *jenv = (JNIEnv*)jni_native_intf;
> > > > > > > > + JNIEnv *jenv = get_jni_env(jthread_self());
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok, I see. I agree that global jni_native_intf should not be used.
> > > > > > > There was simple reason why I altered such lines. Because I
changed
> > > > > > > the type of jni_native_intf and no casting operator is needed
now. To
> > > > > > > be honest I think get_jni_env(jthread_self()) can be good as
temporary
> > > > > > > solution only. Lets wait for design of multi VM and fix it
according
> > > > > > > to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While we are in JNI code, we always have the JNIenv (at least
> > > > > > initially it comes from Java code). If we consider VM code as if it
> > > > > > was a JNI application, then it seems like we should be just passing
> > > > > > JNIEnv as a parameter to all functions in VM. Or, we can be taking
it
> > > > > > from TLS (via jthread_self()), depending on which way is faster...
> > > > > Agree.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 6). And small remarks:
> > > > > > > > +jint vm_init1(JavaVM_Internal * java_vm, JavaVMInitArgs *
vm_arguments);
> > > > > > > > +jint vm_init2(JNIEnv_Internal * jni_env);
> > > > > > > > Could you make names more meaningful, then 1,2,3...?
> > > > > > > Ok, will do that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > class VM_thread {
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > + JNIEnv_Internal * jni_env;
> > > > > > > > The jthread already has the jni_env pointer, you do not need to
> > > > > > > > duplicate it here.
> > > > > > > > forexample by using jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self());
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes I know. I don't see any problems here. Some times it is much
more
> > > > > > > convenient to get JNIEnv from VM_thread structure (and faster)
instead
> > > > > > > of doing jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self()). So I need strong
> > > > > > > arguments for removing it. Again it seems that should be
addressed in
> > > > > > > design of multi VM. So lets forget about it for a while...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that the data duplication would always serve as a potential
> > > > > > source of errors - while updating one copy of object, you may forget
> > > > > > to update the other, often resulting into a strange behavior of the
> > > > > > whole application. Let's see what are the specific performance
> > > > > > concerns that have to be addressed. To get VM_thread structure, you
> > > > > > would eventually go to the TLS, just like
> > > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self() would do.
> > > > > If there is already VM_thread structure for some reasons then there
> > > > > will be no extra access to TLS. It is definitely much more in
> > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self() than just one TLS access and one
> > > > > dereferncing. I don't think it is a really big problem now. Do you
> > > > > agree to look at this later. I guess multi VM implementation will
> > > > > alter it in any case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Evgueni
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Andrey.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Evgueni
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Artem
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I suppose two days silence means that there is no objects
(maybe
> > > > > > > > > interest) against proposed patch. I would suggest to commit
it ASAP.
> > > > > > > > > It really works! There are some cases when current VM crashes
but the
> > > > > > > > > patch fixes it. I can work on bringing cunit tests to live as
soon as
> > > > > > > > > the patch is committed.... This is just my understanding.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Evgueni
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > So where are we here?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Weldon Washburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> On 9/26/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > On 9/27/06, Andrey Chernyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > (3)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > One more lock is added - hythread_lib_lock. How is
that differ
> > > > > > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the hythread_global_lock that we already have? Each
extra lock
> > > > > > > > > > >> to the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > system may add more possibilities for deadlocks, as
well as can
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > negatively impact the scalability (unless some of
the existing
> > > > > > > > > > >> locks
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > are split).
> > > > > > > > > > >> > hythread_lib_lock acquires exactly the same lock as
> > > > > > > > > > >> > hythread_global_lock. Probably I miss something but we
need to be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > compatible with IBM threading library now. This
library has such
> > > > > > > > > > >> > function. That's why I added it. Sounds right?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Well, this sort of, kind of sounds right but not quite.
Its a
> > > > > > > > > > >> little more
> > > > > > > > > > >> subtle than being compatible with IBM threading library.
The
> > > > > > > > > > >> first goal is
> > > > > > > > > > >> to identify the parts of IBM threading library that are
JVM
> > > > > > > > > > >> independent. It
> > > > > > > > > > >> makes sense for DRLVM to be compatible with the
independent
> > > > > > > > > > >> parts. This
> > > > > > > > > > >> should be a nobrainer.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> The parts of IBM threading library that assume a
specific JVM
> > > > > > > > > > >> implementation
> > > > > > > > > > >> will be a problem. We will need to find a solution that
is
> > > > > > > > > > >> endorsed by all
> > > > > > > > > > >> the stakeholders (including J9 folks). The
hythread_global_lock
> > > > > > > > > > >> falls into
> > > > > > > > > > >> this category. For starts, I would like to see a concise
> > > > > > > > > > >> description from
> > > > > > > > > > >> the portlib owners on what hythread_global_lock
protects, which
> > > > > > > > > > >> locks have
> > > > > > > > > > >> to be held before grabbing this lock, are there any
restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > >> on what
> > > > > > > > > > >> system calls can be made while holding this lock (like
sleep or
> > > > > > > > > > >> wait), etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Weldon, I completely agree with what your are saying.
It's common
> > > > > > > > > > > problem of current hythread that should be resolved some
how. I just
> > > > > > > > > > > go inline with current implementation and added two
missing functions.
> > > > > > > > > > > Missing these can lead to the same problems as with
hythread_exit
> > > > > > > > > > > discussed in another thread "[drlvm] [launcher] Executable
hangs".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> To get a better idea what's in the patch.diff, I printed
it out.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Its 120+
> > > > > > > > > > >> pages. Quite a big patch! Most of it looks like
straight forward
> > > > > > > > > > >> JNI
> > > > > > > > > > >> interface glue. There are some tricky parts. I would
like to
> > > > > > > > > > >> know the
> > > > > > > > > > >> design review process for these parts. Using grep, I
found 20
> > > > > > > > > > >> locations
> > > > > > > > > > >> where ...suspend_enable... and ...suspend_disable...
have been
> > > > > > > > > > >> added. And
> > > > > > > > > > >> 25 locations where enable/disable have been removed.
Failure in
> > > > > > > > > > >> this logic
> > > > > > > > > > >> can lead to incorrect reference pointer enumeration.
These are
> > > > > > > > > > >> probably the
> > > > > > > > > > >> hardest bugs to find. Please tell us who has looked at
this code
> > > > > > > > > > >> in depth.
> > > > > > > > > > > Only me and you :-) Honetsly I think it happpens now....
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Are there any known design flaws in it?
> > > > > > > > > > > I can think of two possible problems we may want to
discuss.
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) Should native threads have "daemon" status or its
completely java
> > > > > > > > > > > notion? This is TM related thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) Should we attach thread to VM before attaching it to
TM by calling
> > > > > > > > > > > jthread_atatch OR jthread_attach should callback VM to
attach a thread
> > > > > > > > > > > to it? I didn't change original design of TM here ......
it implements
> > > > > > > > > > > second choice.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> I also notice APIs called tmn_suspend_enable(),
> > > > > > > > > > >> hythread_suspend_enable()
> > > > > > > > > > >> -- are these simply different names for the same binary
> > > > > > > > > > >> executible. Or
> > > > > > > > > > >> different binaries that do the same thing??
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No, this is not just different names. tm_suspend_enable
asserts that
> > > > > > > > > > > thread is in disabled state before calling
hythread_suspend_enable (in
> > > > > > > > > > > debug mode only).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > Evgueni
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Weldon Washburn
> > > > > > > > > > >> > 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]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > 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]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Andrey Chernyshev
> > > > > > 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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrey Chernyshev
> > > 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]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrey Chernyshev
> 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]
>
>
