harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dalibor Topic <robi...@kaffe.org>
Subject Re: [result] Re: [vote] Acceptance of HARMONY-39 : Contribution of beans, regex and math class library code
Date Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:53:48 GMT
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 09:18:45AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> 
> 
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >Hi Richard
> >
> >Did I understand your "1." correctly that this suite (Test for APIs) would 
> >be
> >something competing with Sun's TCK?
> 
> No - nothing we do would compete.  it could be the same functionality, 
> but it's not competing in the sense of trying to surpass or displace. 
> The TCK is the TCK.
> 
> However, having our own suite (using Mauve too...) means that anyone can 
> be running a rich set of tests w/o having to have the TCK and all the 
> legal pain and suffering that goes along with it.

Yup. As one can see on the Jakarta TCK site, there is a lot of suffering
and legal gymnastics involved. If Sun actually cared about fostering 
compatibility between implementations, rather than imposing barriers for 
implementors, things would be different. 

But alas, Sun currently sees other implementations as a threat to its 
business model as a proprietary Java vendor, so one has to deal with
such things until they stop having a business interest in being a
proprietary Java vendor (yeah, right), or go bust (yeah, right), or
actually makes true on the 'participation age' and 'JDK community' talk 
(yeah, right).

cheers,
dalibor topic


> 
> geir
> 
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Mikhail
> >
> >2006/3/21, Richard Liang <richard.liangyx@gmail.com>:
> >>Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >>>Good unit tests are going to be testing things that are package
> >>>protected.  You can't do that if you aren't in the same package
> >>>(obviously).  With the "custom" of putting in things in o.a.h.t are we
> >>>implicitly discouraging good testing practice?  Given that this
> >>>o.a.h.t.* pattern comes from Eclipse-land, how do they do it?  I
> >>>couldn't imagine that the Eclipse tests don't test package protected
> >>>things.
> >>>
> >>Hello Geir,
> >>
> >>Maybe we should have two types of test suites:
> >>1. Test for APIs including public and protected methods which could be
> >>run against different Java SE implementations.
> >>==>> If we want to test a protected method of a class, we could mock a
> >>subclass of this class. And write test case against the subclass.
> >>(Protected methods are accessible to subclass)
> >>
> >>2. Test for internal implementation which may include tests for package
> >>private methods and tests for other internal-used classes.
> >>==>>We must put the tests into the same package if we want to test
> >>package private methods of a class.
> >>
> >>These are just some rough thinking ;-) Any comments? Thanks a lot.
> >>>I've been short of Round Tuits lately, but I still would like to
> >>>investigate a test harness that helps us by mitigating the security
> >>>issues...
> >>>
> >>>geir
> >>>
> >>>Mark Hindess wrote:
> >>>>I thought the crucial thing was that tests should be in a separate
> >>>>namespace not in the namespace of the package they are testing (at
> >>>>least not unless it was absolutely necessary).
> >>>>-Mark.
> >>>>
> >>>>On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>>>I'm doing it now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I need to go back and stare at our discussion on test setup, because
> >>>>>I'm
> >>>>>  still not a raving fan of o.a.h.test....
> >>>>>
> >>>>>geir
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Mark Hindess wrote:
> >>>>>>Don't worry, you'd have to be less subtle for me to take something
> >>>>>>as criticism.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I've had an attempt at moving beans out - HARMONY-218.  If that
gets
> >>>>>>committed I'll do the other too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>-Mark.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>That wasn't a criticism, btw.  It seemed like a natural thing
to
> >>>>>>>do when
> >>>>>>>I first saw it, but when I was actually dealing w/ it, my
opinion
> >>>>>>>changed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Yah, split away!  That was going to be my next question,
how to
> >>>>>>>split..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>geir
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Mark Hindess wrote:
> >>>>>>>>Fair enough.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Mind if I redo the script/patch to split the three modules
to match
> >>>>>>>>the structure of the others?  That is, into separate
modules/math,
> >>>>>>>>modules/beans, modules/regex directories?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Regards,
> >>>>>>>> Mark.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>I just committed.  There was some delay because of
a missing
> >>>>>>>>>CCLA.  Sorry.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I've committed the code as is from the JIRA.  I'm
going to do
> >>>>>>>>>some basic
> >>>>>>>>>cleanup and then look at hte patches to integrate.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Looking at this (and 88?) I think that this "add
patches"
> >>>>>>>>>approach is a
> >>>>>>>>>bad one, because it complicates what this JIRA is
now.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>In the future, I think we should just create new
JIRA's for
> >>>>>>>>>add-ons (if
> >>>>>>>>>the add-on contributor isn't the contributor of the
original
> >>>>>>>>>JIRA) and
> >>>>>>>>>just link them so they are easy to keep track of...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Richard Liang wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>Despite a touch of trouble with the packaging
of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>contribution, it
> >>>>>>>>>>>passed with flying colors ( or 'colours',
for our UK friends...)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>+1 from :
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Geir
> >>>>>>>>>>>Stefano
> >>>>>>>>>>>Dims
> >>>>>>>>>>>Tim
> >>>>>>>>>>>Leo
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>In it comes....
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>I have received the ACQs and the BCC
for Harmony-39, so I can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>assert
> >>>>>>>>>>>>that the critical provenance paperwork
is in order (although
> >>>>>>>>>>>>not in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>SVN yet).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Please vote to accept or reject this
codebase into the Apache
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Harmony
> >>>>>>>>>>>>class library :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>[ ] + 1 Accept
> >>>>>>>>>>>>[ ] -1 Reject  (provide reason below
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Lets let this run 3 days unless a) someone
states they need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>more time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>or b) we get all committer votes before
then.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Go...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>geir
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Hello Geir,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>As this contribution has been accepted for a
long time, I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>wondering
> >>>>>>>>>>when the source code could be put into Harmony
SVN.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>I'm working on the implementation of java.text.DecimalFormat
> >>>>>>>>>>which has
> >>>>>>>>>>enhancements on BigDecimal and BigInteger support.
Now I just
> >>>>>>>>>>use this
> >>>>>>>>>>contribution as external jars in Eclipse.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>--
> >>>>>>>>Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>
> >>>>>>>>IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>--
> >>>>>>Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>
> >>>>>>IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>
> >>>>IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Richard Liang
> >>China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

Mime
View raw message