Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of mloenko@gmail.com designates
 66.249.92.168 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=cIvF3osoF0q45lkq/GW7Ja9RPQPTefni2RZkoH7ObufJS37Uf8MeCS88+jlbCXiEgaPX7s3XJXxghhroa35jy27NWZfuOfdh10c0Y1OByqx7uG7AXgF30X0fmlctiTNjuFHH+jxNZOdxFGr297xpxGQ2oMHrVmSxTGUKqI+PMIs=
Message-ID: <906dd82e0605232047p66a72dber3eb3e7c8596a1de0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 10:47:09 +0700
From: "Mikhail Loenko" <mloenko@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org, geir@pobox.com
Subject: Re: Moving forward with RMI and Math ( was Re: towards a new
 implementation of java.math)
In-Reply-To: <44735684.6070302@pobox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200605171435.k4HEZeZD032172@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
	 <44735684.6070302@pobox.com>

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 interoper=
able
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=3Drmi-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> wr=
ote:
> >> 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