harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Beyer" <nbe...@kc.rr.com>
Subject RE: [classlib] proposal - resolution to java.util.concurrent issue
Date Wed, 07 Jun 2006 23:43:00 GMT
I'm all for it, especially if Doug is okay with it. I made an attempt at
using the code a week back and it should be fairly easy to get the majority
of it in. The missing piece would be a VMI API for the atomic and lock
functionality.

Would we be using the latest version from HEAD, or is there a tag we should
begin with? The latest code seems to have some Java 6 classes. Would we
leave them out for now, or just leave them in?

-Nathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:29 AM
> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [classlib] proposal - resolution to java.util.concurrent issue
> 
> I had a nice chat with Doug today to try to reach a conclusion regarding
> j.u.c
> 
> Given that everyone else (Sun, IBM, BEA...) seems to use j.u.c, found here
> 
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-
> bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/main/java/util/concurrent/
> 
> I think that we'd be well-served to do so as well.  It's the RI, it's
> complicated, it goes w/o saying that Doug is committed to this being
> right, and I'd like to have the same bugs as everyone else for now :)
> 
> The summary of what I think we should do is simple - we take the code
> from j.u.c from the above link (w/ 1 exception) into our SVN repo and
> track any changes made by Doug and the jsr166 EG going forward.
> 
> All the code is under the following terms, which are acceptable to the ASF
> :
> 
> /*
>  * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
>  * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
>  * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
>  */
> 
> except for one file :
> 
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-
> bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/main/java/util/concurrent/CopyOnWriteArrayList.
> java
> 
> for which I understand we can get a clean replacement from the backport.
> 
> Now, there is an issue of our clean-room rules, and I think there's a
> very neat solution that would allow us to use this code w/o getting an
> ACQ from the authors of j.u.c (which Doug claims is himself, assisted by
> the JSR166 EG)
> 
> The premise of our ACQ structure is that we want to ensure that people
> who have worked on a non-open/non-free implementation of a
> portion/module/component of Java not work on our implementation of that
> portion/module/component.
> 
> Now, given that j.u.c in Java SE 5 is the first time this functionality
> has existed, it must be the case that the contributors are not
> contaminated by working on another implementation, since there are no
> other implementations.  We can't be contaminated because there's nothing
> with which to contaminate us with.
> 
> Of course, this needs VM support, so there is work to do, but this seems
> like a sane and clean way to add this functionality to Harmony classlib,
> as well as build a bridge to another part of the Java SE ecosystem.
> 
> Comments? Things that I missed?
> 
> geir
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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