harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Loenko" <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving forward with RMI and Math ( was Re: towards a new implementation of java.math)
Date Wed, 24 May 2006 04:39:07 GMT
I think that contribution authors and everyone who is interested in the areas
will control that their best ideas go to the merged version.

It seems that we do not need a special document about that

Thanks,
Mikhail

2006/5/24, Vladimir Gorr <vvgorr@gmail.com>:
> Who will control the accuracy of this process (I mean merging)?
> Obviously we need to have the document substantiating that or other choice.
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir.
>
> On 5/24/06, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2006/5/24, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com>:
> > > 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.
> > +1
> >
> > I suggest that as a base we take RMI from Intel as it seems to be
> > interoperable
> > with RI and take Math from ITC as it reportedly has better performance.
> >
> > Then we will aplly best ideas from counterparts implementations to the
> > base.
> >
> > Does it work for everyone?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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