harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel Fridlender" <dfridlen...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: towards a new implementation of java.math
Date Wed, 17 May 2006 16:49:49 GMT
Hi Mark,

On 5/17/06, Daniel Gandara <danielgandara@neosur.com> wrote:
> Mark Hindess wrote:
> >
> > 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 :)

I agree.  Would you create a new jira with this for math?  Then I
would upload there a document with the result of our comparison and a
proposal for a combination of the two implementations.

Thanks

Daniel Fridlender
ITC


>
> >
> > 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
>
>

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