Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <015001c66234$e9e8fe20$c900a8c0@neosur.com>
From: "Daniel Gandara" <danielgandara@neosur.com>
To: <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org>
References: <E124AAE027DA384D8B919F93E4D8C70801A6C210@mssmsx402nb>
Subject: [rmi] package comparison (was Re: Contribution of RMI framework)
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:38:02 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 and VMs are still in 1.4.2 we deployed
a 1.4.2 version of our package in which we removed the 5.0
dependencies.    There is obviously a performance penalty
paid by the 1.4.2 release of the package.
You can find both versions of the packages at 
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-211

b) compatibility with reference implementation
   within our contribution you will find a complete set of test cases
(source code and documentation for each).   We run these test cases
against our package before contributing it, so I guess one way to
move further is to cross run test cases (you run ours and we run
yours).   What do you think?

c) performance analysis and comparison
    I believe the first step here is to get along about which is the
workload or set of applications that represent a "real" use of rmi
package.   I see a big challenge here...

I'll wait for your comments,

Daniel

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zakharov, Vasily M" <vasily.m.zakharov@intel.com>
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-public API, and some components
(e. g. RMIC) have no public API at all. So it's hard to plug just one
public method from one implementation to another without modifying
non-public code - and non-public code could have (and probably does
have) very different structure in different implementations.

What we really can do is try to run both these implementations and
compare them for conformance to the specification, compatibility with
reference implementation, maybe stability, performance, visual code
quality etc. I'm now planning to do some of these, so we'd get some
results pretty soon.

 Vasily


-----Original Message-----
From: Mikhail Loenko [mailto:mloenko@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 7:53 AM
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 <danielgandara@neosur.com>:
> 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" <vasily.m.zakharov@intel.com>
> To: <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:53 PM
> Subject: Contribution of RMI framework
>
>
> 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 RMI framework.
>
> The archive with this contribution can be found at:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-337
>
> The Remote Method Invocation (RMI) framework enables an object in one
> virtual machine to call methods of an object in another one, to create
> applications distributed on various Java virtual machines on the same
> or different hosts.
>
> For more information please see the documentation contained in the
> bundle.
>
> The code is a result of efforts of Intel Middleware Product Division
> team.
> One should be able to run this code with a 1.4+ compatible JRE/VM (was
> tested using commercial VMs). No classes require special support from
> the VM.
> All code is pure Java. The implementation is done according to Java
1.4
> specification of RMI.
>
> The archive contains the README file that explains the building and
> running
> process for this code. If any additional comments or clarifications
are
> needed, feel free to contact me. I will be happy to answer all
questions
> about this contribution and to participate in its further
> development/maintenance and integration into Harmony.
>
> Vasily Zakharov
> Intel Middleware Product Division
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org