harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hindess <mark.hind...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: towards a new implementation of java.math
Date Wed, 17 May 2006 14:35:40 GMT

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.)

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?

Regards,
 Mark.

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


Mime
View raw message