harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel Gandara" <danielgand...@neosur.com>
Subject Re: towards a new implementation of java.math
Date Wed, 17 May 2006 15:30:16 GMT
Mark Hindess wrote:
>
> Daniel,
>
> I've just contributed a JIRA,
>  http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-471
> that integrates the ITC rmi implementation as modules/rmi.  (The jsr14
> version.  Only the code at the moment, I creating the scripts/patches
> for the tests next.)

   We've been working on improvements to the rmi test suite,
I've contributed that at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-473
(I created a new JIRA since previous one HARMONY-211 was closed-)
so please take that test suite.

> In this JIRA, I modified the build ant files to support a property,
> 'hy.rmi.module', which defaults to 'rmi'.  I did this so that, if we
> integrate the Intel implementationas modules/rmi-intel, developers can
> easily build/test the different implementation just by overriding the
> property on the ant command line.  For example:
>
>  ant -f make/build.xml -Dhy.rmi.module=rmi-intel
>
> It would be quite trivial to do the same for the math implementations
> (and crypto I suppose).  If we were to do this, perhaps the process of
> analysis and creation of a combined implementation could be done within
> the project?  In public and with more potential contributions.
>
> What do you think?

looks like a good and easy solution to handle packages with multiple
contributions; I'll let Daniel (Fridlender) to answer since he is the one
leading math :)

>
> Regards,
> Mark.

Thanks,

Daniel Gandara
BTW: we are a bunch of Daniels here at Cordoba :)))

>
> On 17 May 2006 at 11:19, "Daniel Fridlender" <dfridlender@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> After a discussion we had a few weeks ago in this forum on the
>> different implementations of java.math donated to Harmony
>> (Harmony-(39+380) and Harmony-199) we (ITC) decided to voluteer for
>> the task of integrating them into a single implementation which would
>> benefit from the best features of Harmony-39, 380 and 199.
>>
>> We will consider comparing on a method-by-method level but also on
>> ideas level so that the new implementation will probably require
>> re-programming good ideas from the existing implementations.  In the
>> case of BigInteger we will also compare the benefits of the different
>> internal representations.
>>
>> Right now we are analysing the two implementations.  Once we are done
>> with this analysis we will make it public and propose a way to proceed
>> towards an integration.
>>
>> BTW, we had problems patching Harmony-380 over Harmony-39, it attempts
>> to erase non-existing lines.  Did we miss something?  Is there any
>> other intermediate patch that we have missed?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Daniel Fridlender
>> ITC
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message