harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From George Harley <george.c.har...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Security module layout
Date Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:55:06 GMT
Hi Stepan,

Thanks for raising this. I agree with you that accomplishing the 
separate goals of HARMONY-95 and HARMONY-147 would probably be easier if 
security was first moved to the new layout (assuming it gets the 
blessing of the committers) before auth gets separated out.

Best regards,
George
IBM UK


Stepan Mishura wrote:
> George, we are going to extract auth module (see HARMONY-95) and all
> platform-specific java code will go into the new module.
>
> To avoid patches conflict will we define a sequence in which we will apply
> them? IMHO, it makes sense to adjust to proposed layout first and then to
> perform auth module extraction. What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan Mishura
> Intel Middleware Products Division
>
>
> On 3/1/06, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi George
>>>
>>> if you restructured the stuff on your computer, could you submit a
>>>       
>> patch?
>>     
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mikhail
>>>
>>>       
>> Hi Mikhail,
>>
>> Yes, it has always been my hope to do so. Given the amount of change
>> involved, I just wanted to run things by the broader community before
>> proceeding to open a JIRA on the matter. Your feedback has been very
>> helpful and I will work towards getting the patch submitted today.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> George
>> IBM UK
>>
>>
>>     
>>> 2006/2/27, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> 2006/2/27, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hi George
>>>>>>
>>>>>> actually the native code we have in security should work on both
>>>>>> IA32 and IPF
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, it seems that with your suggestion we will have to have
>>>>>> two copies of that code. Please correct me if I'm wrong
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is about the following str:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +-win/
>>>>>> |  |
>>>>>> |  +--IA32/
>>>>>> |  |
>>>>>> |  +--IPF/
>>>>>> |  |
>>>>>> |  +-- common1.cpp
>>>>>> |  |
>>>>>> |  +-- common2.cpp
>>>>>> |  |
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Mikhail
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Looks good to me. And it's the same story under the "linux" folder ?
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mikhail
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> George
>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> 2006/2/27, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> Hi George,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>> Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable
part
>>>>>>>>                 
>> ;-)
>>     
>>>>>>>> Correct me if I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> ...er...well, I'm not sure that it was foremost in my thoughts
when
>>>>>>>               
>> I
>>     
>>>>>>> was working through the layout changes :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply wanted to have a way of differentiating between code
>>>>>>>               
>> written
>>     
>>>>>>> for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on Intel architecture. I am assuming
>>>>>>>               
>> that
>>     
>>>>>>> the Windows code there today is for 32 bit. I did wonder about
>>>>>>>               
>> splitting
>>     
>>>>>>> those directory names up so that instead of a folder called "
>>>>>>>               
>> win.IA32"
>>     
>>>>>>> we had a "win" folder with a "IA32" sub-folder (and likewise
for
>>>>>>>               
>> Linux).
>>     
>>>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> java
>>>>>>>  |
>>>>>>>  +-common
>>>>>>>  |
>>>>>>>  +-win
>>>>>>>  |  |
>>>>>>>  |  \---IA32
>>>>>>>  |
>>>>>>>  +-linux
>>>>>>>  |  |
>>>>>>>  |  \---IA32
>>>>>>>  |
>>>>>>>  ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above approach leaves the way open for other variants (e.g.
>>>>>>>               
>> 64-bit
>>     
>>>>>>> code) to be added in new sub-folders beneath "win" and "linux".
In
>>>>>>>               
>> the
>>     
>>>>>>> end I opted for consistency with the "win.IA32" and "linux.IA32"
>>>>>>>               
>> names
>>     
>>>>>>> that are currently being used under the trunk/native-src folder
in
>>>>>>>               
>> SVN.
>>     
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jean-Frederic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Mikhail
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2006/2/24, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render
quite correctly
>>>>>>>>>> for me
>>>>>>>>>> when I read over the sent note (sigh).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  <SECURITY ROOT>
>>>>>>>>>>        |
>>>>>>>>>>        |
>>>>>>>>>>        +---src
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   +---main
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   +---java
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |   +---common
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |   +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |   \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   +---native
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |   +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |   \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |   \---resources
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |       |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |       \---common
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   +---test
>>>>>>>>>>        |       |
>>>>>>>>>>        |       +---java
>>>>>>>>>>        |           |
>>>>>>>>>>        |           +---common
>>>>>>>>>>        |           |
>>>>>>>>>>        |           +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>        |           |
>>>>>>>>>>        |           \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>        |
>>>>>>>>>>        +---doc
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   \---images
>>>>>>>>>>        |
>>>>>>>>>>        +---make
>>>>>>>>>>        |   |
>>>>>>>>>>        |   \---native
>>>>>>>>>>        |       |
>>>>>>>>>>        |       +---linux
>>>>>>>>>>        |       |
>>>>>>>>>>        |       \---windows
>>>>>>>>>>        |
>>>>>>>>>>        +---META-INF
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> George Harley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Earlier on today I spent some time following
the instructions
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> for
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1].
After
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> experimenting
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check
out
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> modules/security and
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> found that, in its current form, it can't be
brought into an
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> Eclipse
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> workspace and used like the other modules. One
obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> difference is
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata
in there (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>> .project and .classpath files). After adding
these in (in my
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> private
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> workspace), I began to look at other differences
between
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> security and
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> its peer modules in particular the difference
in source layouts.
>>>>>>>>>>> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been
kicked around
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> this
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> list,
>>>>>>>>>>> I started to move things around a little to try
and make things
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> a
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>>>> more uniform with respect to those peer modules.
Things were
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> made more
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting by virtue of the following security
module
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> distinctions :
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> * it has platform-specific Java code
>>>>>>>>>>> * it contains native code for both Windows and
Linux
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more
attuned to the
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> other
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse
pointed out
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> several
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
file -
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> including
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> one that cannot presently be satisfied with what
is in the
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> Harmony
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest
wants
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> to
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which
doesn't exist
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> in the
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> repository - although an implementation has been
contributed
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> [2]).
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> In addition to moving source around, I also made
the necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> tweaks to
>>>>>>>>>>> the Ant scripts contained in the security module
plus the "top
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> level"
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so
the Ant builds
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> still work
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> as before.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit
of this note
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> renders
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> structure
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders
for
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> clarity) :
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
>>>>>>>>>>>       |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |
>>>>>>>>>>>       +---src
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   +---main
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   +---java
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |   +---common
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |   +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |   \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |         |   |   +---native
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |   +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |   \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |   \---resources
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |       |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |       \---common
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |        |   +---test
>>>>>>>>>>>       |       |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |       +---java
>>>>>>>>>>>       |           |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |           +---common
>>>>>>>>>>>       |           |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |           +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>>       |           |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |           \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>>       |
>>>>>>>>>>>       +---doc
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   \---images
>>>>>>>>>>>       |
>>>>>>>>>>>       +---make
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |   \---native
>>>>>>>>>>>       |       |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |       +---linux
>>>>>>>>>>>       |       |
>>>>>>>>>>>       |       \---windows
>>>>>>>>>>>       |
>>>>>>>>>>>       +---META-INF
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All of the leaf folders under "src" have been
declared to
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> Eclipse as
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders
called
>>>>>>>>>>> "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
>>>>>>>>>>> "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common"
and so
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> on...).
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> I would be really keen to hear what people think
of this
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> prototype
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> re-structuring. It would be great if we could
make the security
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> module
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the
other modules are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
>>     
>>>>>>>>>>> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>>>       
>>     
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Stepan Mishura
> Intel Middleware Products Division
>
>   


Mime
View raw message