harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hindess <mark.hind...@googlemail.com>
Subject ITC rmi tests (was Re: towards a new implementation of java.math)
Date Wed, 17 May 2006 15:57:25 GMT

On 17 May 2006 at 12:30, "Daniel Gandara" <danielgandara@neosur.com> wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for the heads-up.  I just saw the JIRA messages.  (I notice it
includes all the code again and is classified as a contribution.  But
I assume this is just a derivative work of the previous contribution
rather than a new contribution?  That is we don't need to wait for
another vote.)

Integrating the tests was proving interesting.  Have you been following
the discussion of the test naming/layout conventions?  The latest
proposal is here:

  http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html

I was having a little difficulty in (quickly) figuring out which tests
are implementation-independent (api) tests.  Or indeed which tests will
run stand-alone without any infrastructure being configured.  Perhaps
you could help?  I don't really like the idea of integrating code
without at least some tests that everyone can run.

In the meantime, I'll take a look at the new JIRA.

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

;-)

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


Mime
View raw message