Message -
From: Zakharov, Vasily M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
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 complete
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, Vasily M wrote
Daniel,
We started our development as a clean room implementation
of the package following the spec; and we
, April 21, 2006 12:43 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Contribution of RMI framework
Vasily,
I was not looking for public general designs of RMI, I do
know them very well :) thanks anyway...
I asked about specific design docs of your implementation
and the architecture
, April 21, 2006 1:17 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI
framework)
Zakharov, Vasily M wrote
Daniel,
We started our development as a clean room implementation
of the package following the spec; and we found it -the spec
(JRMP
://java.sun.com/developer/onlineTraining/rmi/RMI.html
Vasily
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:17 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Contribution of RMI framework
Vasily,
I'm reviewing your
, 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 not allow
interoperability simply because you cannot derive it from the
spec. We started our development
not have them handy.
Daniel
- Original Message -
From: Zakharov, Vasily M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:46 AM
Subject: RE: Contribution of RMI framework
Daniel,
Regretfully, we have no specific top level design documentation
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI
framework)
Vasily,
You are not missing anything, our package does not allow
interoperability simply because you cannot derive it from the
spec. We started our development as a clean room implementation
of the package
about our design
here http://www.itc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/architecture.html
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Gandara [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Contribution of RMI framework
I completelly agree with Vasily
comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI
framework)
Daniel,
I've been trying to do some comparisons, as I promised, and I believe
I'm missing something.
I was testing the interoperability, and when I tried to use an Intel
RMI client against an ITC server, it failed, although it worked
against a Sun
] 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 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
, April 14, 2006 1:17 PM
Subject: RE: Contribution of RMI framework
Hi, Mikhail,
Regretfully, the method-to-method comparison would hardly be effective
with RMI, as it's a highly integrated component.
80% of implementation is hidden in non-public API, and some components
(e. g. RMIC) have
PROTECTED]
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 1:17 PM
Subject: RE: Contribution of RMI framework
Hi, Mikhail,
Regretfully, the method-to-method comparison would hardly be effective
with RMI, as it's a highly integrated component.
80% of implementation is hidden in non
- Original Message -
From: Zakharov, Vasily M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 4:38 AM
Subject: RE: Contribution of RMI framework
Daniel,
Yeah, I'm also looking forward to a good discussion on that.
And I do believe we'd have a great Harmony
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Contribution of RMI framework
Vasily,
good to know that there is someone out there who has also
been working on rmi; I believe we'll have a lot to share and discuss
about it.
Thanks,
Daniel
- Original Message -
From: Zakharov, Vasily M [EMAIL
: Contribution of RMI framework
Cool!
How does this compare to the other RMI framework that also has been
donated? Any thoughts?
geir
Zakharov, Vasily M wrote:
Hi, all,
I would like to announce the next code contribution to Harmony project
on
behalf of Intel corporation. This contribution
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Contribution of RMI framework
I think we need compare contributions method by method to assemble
the best classlib
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/4/14, Daniel Gandara [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Vasily,
good to know that there is someone out there who has also
Cool!
How does this compare to the other RMI framework that also has been
donated? Any thoughts?
geir
Zakharov, Vasily M wrote:
Hi, all,
I would like to announce the next code contribution to Harmony project
on
behalf of Intel corporation. This contribution contains the
implementation
of
Vasily,
good to know that there is someone out there who has also
been working on rmi; I believe we'll have a lot to share and discuss
about it.
Thanks,
Daniel
- Original Message -
From: Zakharov, Vasily M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent:
I think we need compare contributions method by method to assemble
the best classlib
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/4/14, Daniel Gandara [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Vasily,
good to know that there is someone out there who has also
been working on rmi; I believe we'll have a lot to share and discuss
20 matches
Mail list logo
