harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Moving forward with RMI and Math ( was Re: towards a new implementation of java.math)
Date Tue, 23 May 2006 18:37:56 GMT
I'd like to propose that we choose what we judge to be the best RMI 
implementation, and the best math implementation now so we can move 
forward, with the understanding that anyone interested can continue to 
work to merge the additional contributions into whatever was chosen.

We then get out of the "cross patch between HARMONY-Y and HARMONY-X" 
stuff...

I don't mind keeping rmi1, rmi2, rmi3, math1, math2, etc as long as we 
have "rmi" and "math" which are understood to be the ones we're moving 
with at this moment.  it's kinda confusing right now...

Thoughts?

geir


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.)
> 
> 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
> 
> 


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