Re: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI framework)

2006-04-24 Thread Daniel Gandara
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

Re: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI framework)

2006-04-24 Thread Daniel Gandara
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

RE: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI framework)

2006-04-21 Thread Zakharov, Vasily M
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

Re: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI framework)

2006-04-20 Thread Daniel Gandara
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

RE: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI framework)

2006-04-20 Thread Zakharov, Vasily M
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

Re: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI framework)

2006-04-19 Thread Daniel Gandara
System.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:[EMAIL PRO

RE: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI framework)

2006-04-18 Thread Zakharov, Vasily M
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

[rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI framework)

2006-04-17 Thread Daniel Gandara
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