harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Tanzer <stru...@guglhupf.net>
Subject Re: [vote] Accept JIRA contribution HARMONY-5 : David Tanzer's proof-of-concept component model
Date Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:10:39 GMT
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 02:58 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2005, at 2:51 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
> 
> > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> >> David Tanzer has offered his proof-of-concept component model to  
> >> the  project.  It can be found here :
> >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5
> >> [ ] +1 Accept the code into the project
> >> [X] -1 Don't accept the code.  Reason :
> >>
> >
> > The code itself is posix only.
> 
> It's a proof of concept for the sandbox!  This isn't a commitment to  
> the idea or the implementation, but just getting it in so people can  
> play....

Right, that's what my intention was, nothing more.

> > If we continue this way, porting to the other platforms will
> > become impossible.
> > Even the simple posix itself is incompatible between various
> > flavors. For example on AIX there is 'archive.a(dso.so)' and
> > dlopen needs 'RTLD_NOW | RTLD_GLOBAL | RTDL_MEMBER' flags.
> > Some platforms like HPUX use the shl_load, not to mention the
> > Windows or Netware.
> >
> > The actual code itself exists, and is very much mature within
> > Apache2, and module dependencies are implemented within apr-iconv
> > project, so perhaps this would be a way to go.
> >
> 
> APR?  I think that we'll leverage APR heavily.  Whether or not the  
> APR API is the one we use as the standard porting layer API remains  
> to be seen. If not, I'm certain will used it for platform  
> implementations of the porting layer...

There are several places in the code where I've added comments about
things that have to be changed if we really use this component model.
Note that there are also serious concerns about performance in a
runtime-configurable component model and Robin Garner suggested to aim
for compile time configurability (See [1]). APR would definitely be a
better choice than posix, but AFAICS the decision about what our 
portability layer will be has not been made yet.

> > Also, what about coding style guide?
> 
> That's a good question, and something I assume we'll converge around  
> as we get moving.

I totally agree with that. I discussed earlier with Weldon Washburn 
and Geir about using the Java Coding Conventions where possible (See 
[2] and follow-ups), but this still doesn't cover things like directory
structure, some aspects of documentation policy, etc., and there was no
decision yet.

Regards, 
David.

[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200509.mbox/%3c43326A25.40409@anu.edu.au%3e
[2]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200508.mbox/%3c4dd1f3f0050827071543279cac@mail.gmail.com%3e

> geir
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mladen.
> >
> >
> 
-- 
David Tanzer, Haghofstr. 29, A-3352 St. Peter/Au, Austria/Europe
http://deltalabs.at -- http://dev.guglhupf.net -- http://guglhupf.net
My PGP Public Key: http://guglhupf.net/david/david.asc
--
Jockey for Position Episode:
Brain: Pinky, Are You Pondering What I'm Pondering?
Pinky: Wuh, I think so, Brain, but isn't Regis Philbin already married?

Mime
View raw message