harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] proposal - resolution to java.util.concurrent issue
Date Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:23:41 GMT

Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> 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.
> So I understand correctly, are you talking about taking the source code
> into Harmony SVN, or creating a dependency on a binary version of that
> code (stored in our SVN)?

Into our SVN, simply for ease of use, oversight, and control.

> Just trying to figure the rationale of taking source if the goal is to
> be in lock-step.  Are you imagining that there may be patches created
> here that are ALv2'd only (and maybe therefore do not go back into
> Doug's copy)?

It could be, although given how it seems to be working, I would guess
we'd work with Doug if there were problems, and see if he'd do it into
the RI.

>> 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.
> AIUI (and hypothetically) people could take a copy of the public domain
> code and create a proprietary derivative couldn't they? And the spec is
> out there for all to see, how do you know there are no other
> implementations?

There could be implementations out there now, but there weren't before,
and we'd just have to watch to see what gets added down the road...

That is the gate I was talking about - we are still overseeing what
we're distributing...

>> 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.
> Don't get me wrong, I think we should build the bridge -- just working
> things out in my head.
>> Comments? Things that I missed?
> Invite the j.u.concurrent expert group to move in <g>.

That would be cool :)


> Regards,
> Tim

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

View raw message