Re: [RFC/PATCH] Invokedynamic API stubs
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 22:01 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 15:24 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: I guess I could keep it on my Github mirror until I have something concrete enough to be merged to trunk. I'd prefer to have it in HEAD as long as it's clearly marked as stubs (the NotImplementedException I mentioned) and there is work actively taking place. Then there's always the (slim) possibility someone else can work on it :-) That was my original thinking as well. Does the included patch look better to you? Mark, what do you think about this? I admit to still just not like stubs, however they are setup. If creating branches wasn't such a pain with CVS I would really recommend doing all this on a branch and only merge when ready and it can actually be used with some VM. I guess it is just time to bite the bullet and create some time to move to mercurial and setup some rules about how to create working branches. I won't veto getting this in right now if that is really what you and Andrew want, but I am not particularly excited either. This patch implements the work-in-progress invokedynamic API stubs described here: http://download.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/dyn/package-summary.html The classes don't do anything useful yet and don't even contain all the specified methods. Might be better to find some other reference to point people at. This screams it isn't finished yet, might move. I don't have a good suggestion though. The java doc in OpenJDK is distributed under the GPL though, but doesn't seem to be online yet. Cheers, Mark
Re: [RFC/PATCH] Invokedynamic API stubs
Hi Mark, On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 15:24 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: I guess I could keep it on my Github mirror until I have something concrete enough to be merged to trunk. I'd prefer to have it in HEAD as long as it's clearly marked as stubs (the NotImplementedException I mentioned) and there is work actively taking place. Then there's always the (slim) possibility someone else can work on it :-) On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 22:01 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: That was my original thinking as well. Does the included patch look better to you? Mark, what do you think about this? On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Mark Wielaard m...@klomp.org wrote: I admit to still just not like stubs, however they are setup. If creating branches wasn't such a pain with CVS I would really recommend doing all this on a branch and only merge when ready and it can actually be used with some VM. I guess it is just time to bite the bullet and create some time to move to mercurial and setup some rules about how to create working branches. I won't veto getting this in right now if that is really what you and Andrew want, but I am not particularly excited either. Well, I'd like to keep everyone involved excited so maybe Mercural branch is the way to go here? Pekka
Re: [RFC/PATCH] Invokedynamic API stubs
On 13:28 Tue 08 Feb , Mark Wielaard wrote: On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 22:01 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 15:24 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: I guess I could keep it on my Github mirror until I have something concrete enough to be merged to trunk. I'd prefer to have it in HEAD as long as it's clearly marked as stubs (the NotImplementedException I mentioned) and there is work actively taking place. Then there's always the (slim) possibility someone else can work on it :-) That was my original thinking as well. Does the included patch look better to you? Mark, what do you think about this? I admit to still just not like stubs, however they are setup. If creating branches wasn't such a pain with CVS I would really recommend doing all this on a branch and only merge when ready and it can actually be used with some VM. I guess it is just time to bite the bullet and create some time to move to mercurial and setup some rules about how to create working branches. I won't veto getting this in right now if that is really what you and Andrew want, but I am not particularly excited either. I assume by Mercurial 'branching', you mean what we do with IcedTea6 HEAD and the releases at present, not the in-tree support? Because that's worse than CVS IME. This patch implements the work-in-progress invokedynamic API stubs described here: http://download.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/dyn/package-summary.html The classes don't do anything useful yet and don't even contain all the specified methods. Might be better to find some other reference to point people at. This screams it isn't finished yet, might move. I don't have a good suggestion though. The java doc in OpenJDK is distributed under the GPL though, but doesn't seem to be online yet. Is there anything stopping us having the docs generated by IcedTea online? Maybe the builder could produce them? Cheers, Mark -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://icedtea.classpath.org PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D 0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37
