Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x seems just as capable as TestNG. IIRC JUnit 4.x doesn't have the rich set of grouping annotations TestNG has. Moreover (again IIRC), JUnit doesn't have it at all. Only TestSuites. Thanks, 2006/11/7, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 11/6/06, Paulex Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) I don't understand - what do you mean? Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit instead... Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:) If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x seems just as capable as TestNG. -- Alexei Zakharov, Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
Re: [classlib] [suncompat] completion (was; Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1)
On 11/8/06, Tim Ellison wrote:
Nathan Beyer wrote:
I just looked at the changes you made and have a question about this
snippet.
+if (VM.callerClassLoader() != null) {
+throw new SecurityException(Unsafe);
+}
I just want to understand what this actually means. If the
'callerClassLoader' is null, then the caller is the bootstrap class
loader, correct? Assuming that's correct, we're asserting that only
classes in the bootstrap class loader can call Unsafe, correct?
Exactly, we are saying that only 'system' code (i.e. that on the
bootclasspath) can get an instance of Unsafe because of the inherent
dangers in the Unsafe APIs. It is then the responsibility of such
system code not to release the instance of Unsafe to application code.
IMO, if this piece of code may cause questions then it makes sense to add
comments above to the code. Just to avoid similar questions in future.
Thanks,
Stepan.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
--
Stepan Mishura
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]
Re: [classlib] [suncompat] completion (was; Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1)
Stepan Mishura wrote:
On 11/8/06, Tim Ellison wrote:
Nathan Beyer wrote:
I just looked at the changes you made and have a question about this
snippet.
+if (VM.callerClassLoader() != null) {
+throw new SecurityException(Unsafe);
+}
I just want to understand what this actually means. If the
'callerClassLoader' is null, then the caller is the bootstrap class
loader, correct? Assuming that's correct, we're asserting that only
classes in the bootstrap class loader can call Unsafe, correct?
Exactly, we are saying that only 'system' code (i.e. that on the
bootclasspath) can get an instance of Unsafe because of the inherent
dangers in the Unsafe APIs. It is then the responsibility of such
system code not to release the instance of Unsafe to application code.
IMO, if this piece of code may cause questions then it makes sense to add
comments above to the code. Just to avoid similar questions in future.
Sheesh, you'll be asking me to log violations next ;-)
You make a good point. Done in r472443.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Richard Liang wrote: Tim Ellison wrote: Richard Liang wrote: On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these interfaces, but that may already be done. Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-) Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using that. Sorry ;-) I'm using IBM VME which does not include org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Objects and org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Threads. I will try it with DRLVM. I'm still confused. If you are using stubs that do not actually implement Objects and Threads do you mean that we need Unsafe for TestNG but it doesn't actually use it? I feel that I'm missing something here. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Tim Ellison wrote: Richard Liang wrote: Tim Ellison wrote: Richard Liang wrote: On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these interfaces, but that may already be done. Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-) Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using that. Sorry ;-) I'm using IBM VME which does not include org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Objects and org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Threads. I will try it with DRLVM. I'm still confused. If you are using stubs that do not actually implement Objects and Threads do you mean that we need Unsafe for TestNG but it doesn't actually use it? I feel that I'm missing something here. Maybe it's true that Unsafe is not actually used because I only tried the simplest test scenario which does not use parallel running ;-) Regards, Tim -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Richard Liang wrote: Tim Ellison wrote: Richard Liang wrote: Tim Ellison wrote: Richard Liang wrote: On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these interfaces, but that may already be done. Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-) Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using that. Sorry ;-) I'm using IBM VME which does not include org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Objects and org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Threads. I will try it with DRLVM. I'm still confused. If you are using stubs that do not actually implement Objects and Threads do you mean that we need Unsafe for TestNG but it doesn't actually use it? I feel that I'm missing something here. Maybe it's true that Unsafe is not actually used because I only tried the simplest test scenario which does not use parallel running ;-) And yes, when I try to run the tests with annotation @Test(threadPoolSize = 3, invocationCount = 10, timeOut = 1), the tests hang. I guess the reason is that I use the stubs of Objects and Threads. ;-) Best regards, Richard Regards, Tim -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Richard Liang wrote: Richard Liang wrote: Tim Ellison wrote: Richard Liang wrote: Tim Ellison wrote: Richard Liang wrote: On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these interfaces, but that may already be done. Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-) Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using that. Sorry ;-) I'm using IBM VME which does not include org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Objects and org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Threads. I will try it with DRLVM. I'm still confused. If you are using stubs that do not actually implement Objects and Threads do you mean that we need Unsafe for TestNG but it doesn't actually use it? I feel that I'm missing something here. Maybe it's true that Unsafe is not actually used because I only tried the simplest test scenario which does not use parallel running ;-) And yes, when I try to run the tests with annotation @Test(threadPoolSize = 3, invocationCount = 10, timeOut = 1), the tests hang. I guess the reason is that I use the stubs of Objects and Threads. ;-) Update: Same tests pass on RI and Harmony with DRLVM. Best regards, Richard Best regards, Richard Regards, Tim -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Richard Liang wrote: On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/6/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) I don't understand - what do you mean? Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit instead... What's left for j.u.c? I lost track of that Saga, IIRC. I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these interfaces, but that may already be done. Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-) So you mean we can start the TestNG migration work at any time? -Nathan [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/harmony/kernel/vm/ Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:) geir Paulex - being desperate -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Nathan Beyer wrote: On 11/6/06, Paulex Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) I don't understand - what do you mean? Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit instead... Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:) If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x seems just as capable as TestNG. There was a(or several?) long long thread discussing the TestNG/JUnit 4 comparison, and IIRC most people prefer TestNG at that time, I just don't want to trig another thread on this topic...We have waited so long for TestNG, so let's just go for it if nothing is preventing us now...:) -Nathan geir Paulex - being desperate -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Richard Liang wrote: On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these interfaces, but that may already be done. Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-) Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using that. We need to agree on the extensions to the luni kernel classes so that we can implement them in the IBM VME too (and then share the Unsafe in suncompat). Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
[classlib] [suncompat] completion (was; Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1)
Nathan Beyer wrote: I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these interfaces, but that may already be done. yes, we are very close so should finish this off. Also FYI, I was looking at our Unsafe I've just added a security check and extra initialization. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Tim Ellison wrote: Richard Liang wrote: On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these interfaces, but that may already be done. Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-) Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using that. Sorry ;-) I'm using IBM VME which does not include org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Objects and org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Threads. I will try it with DRLVM. We need to agree on the extensions to the luni kernel classes so that we can implement them in the IBM VME too (and then share the Unsafe in suncompat). Regards, Tim -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Paulex Yang wrote: Richard Liang wrote: On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/6/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) I don't understand - what do you mean? Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit instead... What's left for j.u.c? I lost track of that Saga, IIRC. I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these interfaces, but that may already be done. Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-) So you mean we can start the TestNG migration work at any time? No for current IBM VME; Maybe yes for drlvm (I will try it today ;-) ) -Nathan [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/harmony/kernel/vm/ Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:) geir Paulex - being desperate -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
On 11/7/06, Paulex Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nathan Beyer wrote: On 11/6/06, Paulex Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) I don't understand - what do you mean? Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit instead... Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:) If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x seems just as capable as TestNG. There was a(or several?) long long thread discussing the TestNG/JUnit 4 comparison, and IIRC most people prefer TestNG at that time, I just don't want to trig another thread on this topic...We have waited so long for TestNG, so let's just go for it if nothing is preventing us now...:) This is NOT the impression I got from the various threads. I was under the impression that we were waiting to demonstrate that TestNG could be used to execute tests with the various mix-n-match uses cases (OS, failing, etc). I was waiting for an actual demonstration of the complex use cases. It's possible I missed the consensus; I couldn't keep up with all of the threads. -Nathan -Nathan geir Paulex - being desperate -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM
Re: [classlib] [suncompat] completion (was; Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1)
I just looked at the changes you made and have a question about this snippet.
+if (VM.callerClassLoader() != null) {
+throw new SecurityException(Unsafe);
+}
I just want to understand what this actually means. If the
'callerClassLoader' is null, then the caller is the bootstrap class
loader, correct? Assuming that's correct, we're asserting that only
classes in the bootstrap class loader can call Unsafe, correct?
thanks
-Nathan
On 11/7/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan Beyer wrote:
I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in
luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM
VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
interfaces, but that may already be done.
yes, we are very close so should finish this off.
Also FYI, I was looking at our Unsafe I've just added a security check
and extra initialization.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) I don't understand - what do you mean? Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit instead... Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:) geir Paulex - being desperate -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) I don't understand - what do you mean? Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit instead... What's left for j.u.c? I lost track of that Saga, IIRC. Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:) geir Paulex - being desperate
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
On 11/6/06, Paulex Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) I don't understand - what do you mean? Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit instead... Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:) If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x seems just as capable as TestNG. -Nathan geir Paulex - being desperate -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
On 11/6/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) I don't understand - what do you mean? Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit instead... What's left for j.u.c? I lost track of that Saga, IIRC. I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these interfaces, but that may already be done. -Nathan [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/harmony/kernel/vm/ Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:) geir Paulex - being desperate
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/6/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) I don't understand - what do you mean? Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit instead... What's left for j.u.c? I lost track of that Saga, IIRC. I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these interfaces, but that may already be done. Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-) -Nathan [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/harmony/kernel/vm/ Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:) geir Paulex - being desperate -- Richard Liang China Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) Paulex - being desperate Leo Li wrote: Ya, I think we can. I would like the new features in JUnit4, but it is written in a quite different style from current harmony test codes. Migrate them? Besides, it is related with the thread of JUnit best practice discussing now. We need to make a decision since we can merge the task of migration with the action to enforce JUnit best practice.:) On 11/4/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Assuming we get this functioning, does this mean we can use JUnit 4 testing? -Nathan On 11/3/06, Leo Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, all I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony. With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1]. Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is space for us to improve our performance. VM Windows xp2 Redhat Enterprise4 RI 0.985+0.921 0.75+0.717 J9 4.25+2.61 2.888+2.897 drlvm 8.437+5.359 / *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter, junit.samples.AllTests. For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it on Harmony wiki[2]. [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060 [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Paulex Yang wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: did we decide not to go to TestNG? Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for TestNG...(including me) I don't understand - what do you mean? geir Paulex - being desperate Leo Li wrote: Ya, I think we can. I would like the new features in JUnit4, but it is written in a quite different style from current harmony test codes. Migrate them? Besides, it is related with the thread of JUnit best practice discussing now. We need to make a decision since we can merge the task of migration with the action to enforce JUnit best practice.:) On 11/4/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Assuming we get this functioning, does this mean we can use JUnit 4 testing? -Nathan On 11/3/06, Leo Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, all I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony. With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1]. Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is space for us to improve our performance. VM Windows xp2 Redhat Enterprise4 RI 0.985+0.921 0.75+0.717 J9 4.25+2.61 2.888+2.897 drlvm 8.437+5.359 / *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter, junit.samples.AllTests. For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it on Harmony wiki[2]. [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060 [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
did we decide not to go to TestNG? Leo Li wrote: Ya, I think we can. I would like the new features in JUnit4, but it is written in a quite different style from current harmony test codes. Migrate them? Besides, it is related with the thread of JUnit best practice discussing now. We need to make a decision since we can merge the task of migration with the action to enforce JUnit best practice.:) On 11/4/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Assuming we get this functioning, does this mean we can use JUnit 4 testing? -Nathan On 11/3/06, Leo Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, all I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony. With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1]. Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is space for us to improve our performance. VM Windows xp2 Redhat Enterprise4 RI 0.985+0.921 0.75+0.717 J9 4.25+2.61 2.888+2.897 drlvm 8.437+5.359 / *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter, junit.samples.AllTests. For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it on Harmony wiki[2]. [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060 [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
They are the total test run times and I really feel that harmony launches slower than RI. It is the most abvious difference not only from the above result. I have once tested the performance about net and the result ensures me that harmony performances almost as good as RI although the test I run cannot be said a formal performance test.:) On 11/3/06, Alexey Varlamov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/11/3, Alexey Petrenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]: More and more good new from day to day :) Thanks, Leo! SY, Alexey 2006/11/3, Leo Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, all I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony. With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1]. Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is space for us to improve our performance. VM Windows xp2 Redhat Enterprise4 RI 0.985+0.921 0.75+0.717 J9 4.25+2.61 2.888+2.897 drlvm 8.437+5.359 / *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter, junit.samples.AllTests. For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it on Harmony wiki[2]. Looking at this times, I'd say they are mostly about startup time, not steady performance per se. I wonder how different these numbers are for release vs debug builds - guess Leo used debug versions. And surely there are some tricks RI does to achieve this momentary startup - as ClassDataSharing or resident-in-memory VM core after very first start. I eager to anticipate Harmony will compete strongly in this field soon enough. [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060 [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Leo, I've just tried and could not reproduce DRLVM failure (svn = r470676, (Nov 3 2006), Linux/ia32/gcc 3.3.3, debug build, SUSE9). I have only JRockit installed and got the following timings: BEA JRockit 1.5.0 4.6/4.6 Harmony j9 1.4/1.4 Harmony DRLVM (debug) 6.5/6.5 2006/11/3, Leo Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]: They are the total test run times and I really feel that harmony launches slower than RI. It is the most abvious difference not only from the above result. I have once tested the performance about net and the result ensures me that harmony performances almost as good as RI although the test I run cannot be said a formal performance test.:) On 11/3/06, Alexey Varlamov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/11/3, Alexey Petrenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]: More and more good new from day to day :) Thanks, Leo! SY, Alexey 2006/11/3, Leo Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, all I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony. With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1]. Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is space for us to improve our performance. VM Windows xp2 Redhat Enterprise4 RI 0.985+0.921 0.75+0.717 J9 4.25+2.61 2.888+2.897 drlvm 8.437+5.359 / *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter, junit.samples.AllTests. For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it on Harmony wiki[2]. Looking at this times, I'd say they are mostly about startup time, not steady performance per se. I wonder how different these numbers are for release vs debug builds - guess Leo used debug versions. And surely there are some tricks RI does to achieve this momentary startup - as ClassDataSharing or resident-in-memory VM core after very first start. I eager to anticipate Harmony will compete strongly in this field soon enough. [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060 [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Assuming we get this functioning, does this mean we can use JUnit 4 testing? -Nathan On 11/3/06, Leo Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, all I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony. With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1]. Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is space for us to improve our performance. VM Windows xp2 Redhat Enterprise4 RI 0.985+0.921 0.75+0.717 J9 4.25+2.61 2.888+2.897 drlvm 8.437+5.359 / *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter, junit.samples.AllTests. For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it on Harmony wiki[2]. [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060 [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Ya, I think we can. I would like the new features in JUnit4, but it is written in a quite different style from current harmony test codes. Migrate them? Besides, it is related with the thread of JUnit best practice discussing now. We need to make a decision since we can merge the task of migration with the action to enforce JUnit best practice.:) On 11/4/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Assuming we get this functioning, does this mean we can use JUnit 4 testing? -Nathan On 11/3/06, Leo Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, all I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony. With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1]. Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is space for us to improve our performance. VM Windows xp2 Redhat Enterprise4 RI 0.985+0.921 0.75+0.717 J9 4.25+2.61 2.888+2.897 drlvm 8.437+5.359 / *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter, junit.samples.AllTests. For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it on Harmony wiki[2]. [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060 [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM
[classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Hi, all I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony. With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1]. Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is space for us to improve our performance. VM Windows xp2 Redhat Enterprise4 RI 0.985+0.921 0.75+0.717 J9 4.25+2.61 2.888+2.897 drlvm 8.437+5.359 / *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter, junit.samples.AllTests. For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it on Harmony wiki[2]. [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060 [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
More and more good new from day to day :) Thanks, Leo! SY, Alexey 2006/11/3, Leo Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, all I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony. With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1]. Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is space for us to improve our performance. VM Windows xp2 Redhat Enterprise4 RI 0.985+0.921 0.75+0.717 J9 4.25+2.61 2.888+2.897 drlvm 8.437+5.359 / *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter, junit.samples.AllTests. For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it on Harmony wiki[2]. [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060 [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
2006/11/3, Alexey Petrenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]: More and more good new from day to day :) Thanks, Leo! SY, Alexey 2006/11/3, Leo Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, all I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony. With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1]. Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is space for us to improve our performance. VM Windows xp2 Redhat Enterprise4 RI 0.985+0.921 0.75+0.717 J9 4.25+2.61 2.888+2.897 drlvm 8.437+5.359 / *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter, junit.samples.AllTests. For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it on Harmony wiki[2]. Looking at this times, I'd say they are mostly about startup time, not steady performance per se. I wonder how different these numbers are for release vs debug builds - guess Leo used debug versions. And surely there are some tricks RI does to achieve this momentary startup - as ClassDataSharing or resident-in-memory VM core after very first start. I eager to anticipate Harmony will compete strongly in this field soon enough. [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060 [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM
