pl.java:25)
at ar.org.fitc.test.rmi.server.TestSuiteRMIServer2.main(Unknown
Source)
Thanks,
Vasily
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:50 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [rmi] package comparison
Vasily,
test are not implementati
ssage -
From: "Zakharov, Vasily M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: [rmi] package comparison
Daniel,
I've started with trying to run the unit tests on reference
imlementation, and some tests failed.
So the question is, are
om: Daniel Gandara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:39 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [rmi] package comparison
Vasily,
We've reviewed and improved (code and documentation) our test suite
for rmi, I've created a new JIRA
http://issues.ap
eling test
- Distributed Integration Test
toghether with a PDF with explanations and instructions to run them.
Hope this helps,
Daniel
- Original Message -
From: "Zakharov, Vasily M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: [rmi] p
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: [rmi] package comparison
Daniel,
I was going to run your tests against our implementation, and it looks
like there's a lot of tests in the package, but I found no documentation
on how to run them. Could you please instruct me on how your test sui
ssage-
From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 7:38 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI
framework)
Vasily,
a couple of things about package comparison:
a) java 5.0 vs 1.4.2
Our rmi packag
l 24, 2006 6:26 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI
framework)
Hi Vasily,
I believe we should sum up and start specific threads for each topic;
This is a list of topics and posting names I suggest:
a) Improve Specification
they also have to compare
two implementations.
please comment on each, and add/remove if I'm missing something.
Thanks,
Daniel
- Original Message -
From: "Zakharov, Vasily M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: RE: [rmi] package compari
operability.
Daniel
- Original Message -
From: "Zakharov, Vasily M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: RE: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI
framework)
Daniel,
black-box testing (reverse engineering I would call the comple
our
implememtation behaved differently than the RI.
Vasily
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 1:17 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI
framework)
Zakharov, Vasil
vision
-Original Message-----
From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:17 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI
framework)
Vasily,
You are not missing anything, our package does
oducts Division
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:17 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI
framework)
Vasily,
You are not missing anything, our package d
we are currently working on that.
Daniel
PS: if you do have further information/description of the JRMP protocol
please send it ot me, since it will be very usefull.
- Original Message -
From: "Zakharov, Vasily M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 1
tem.err.println("SUCCESS");
} catch (Throwable e) {
e.printStackTrace();
System.err.println("FAIL");
}
}
}
all.policy:
grant{
permission java.security.AllPermission;
};
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:[E
Vasily,
a couple of things about package comparison:
a) java 5.0 vs 1.4.2
Our rmi package was developed according to 5.0 rmi spec, and
it takes full advantage of 5.0 new features (like java.util.concurrent)
Since Harmony classlib and VMs are still in 1.4.2 we deployed
a 1.4.2 version of our pa
15 matches
Mail list logo
