harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ITC's Contribution
Date Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:24:06 GMT
grr, thanks for finding that out Daniel.  I think we need to speak to
Doug to find out the best starting point for Harmony's j.u.concurrent impl.


Daniel Gandara wrote:
> I found that j.u.c backport is based -in part- on sources from the 
> JCP JSR 166 CVS repository so the source code is somehow under 
> JRL/JDL and that -I believe- makes the code unacceptable for 
> Harmony.  
> Daniel
>> Daniel Gandara wrote:
>> What about the j.u.c backport to 1.4 
>> (http://dcl.mathcs.emory.edu/util/backport-util-concurrent/index.php)
>> it may be a good starting point, on their page they say:
>> "The code can be used for any purpose, modified, and redistributed
>> without acknowledgment. No warranty is provided, either express or
>> implied.
>> Note: versions prior to 2.1 had dependencies on proprietary code.
>> As of 2.1, any such dependencies have been removed."
>> what do you think?
>> Daniel
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:danielgandara@neosur.com]
>> Sent: Wed Mar 08 12:26:18 2006
>> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: ITC's Contribution
>>>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>>> i.e. have you tried running it with the original code (EDU.oswego.cs.dl)
>>>> from Doug's website or only the concurrent utils in 5.0 (JSR166)?
>>> Daniel Gandara wrote:
>>> we have only tried with the concurrent utils in 5.0, but we will try with
>>> Doug's and see how it behaves, I'll let you know.
>> As promised, we've checked EDU.oswego.cs.dl.util.concurrent package (
>> http://g.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/concurrent/intro.html)
>> and while it works beautifully, it seems to not be compliant with the specs
>> for
>> java.util.concurrent (e.g. it is missing some pieces, such as
>> ThreadPoolExecutor,
>> etc). Therefore, I am hesitant of adapting our harmony-compliant package to
>> it,
>> as it may not be acceptable by Harmony once we are done. What do you think?
>> As stated above, we've checked with JSR166
>> (http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/concurrency-interest/index.html )
>> and we are ok with it, since it complies with the spec. However, I am not
>> sure
>> we can use this as part of Harmony, can we?
>> Daniel


Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.

View raw message