harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel Gandara" <danielgand...@neosur.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] resolution of rmi/math/crypto duplication?
Date Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:11:16 GMT
 Hi,

    Attached you will find the rmi package comparison document
 we created at the ITC; in it  you will find a brief summary of each
 contributed RMI, the result of the test cases run against both, and
 our conclusion and advice.

 Vasily, I would like you to complete the summary for Intel's RMI, so
 the info on the doc is accurate.

 Thanks,

 Daniel

PS: I zipped the DOC because couldnt send the DOC as is
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Daniel Gandara" <danielgandara@neosur.com>
>> To: <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 10:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [classlib] resolution of rmi/math/crypto duplication?
>>
>>
>>>On 7/21/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Fridlender wrote:
>>>> > On 7/21/06, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>> >> > While it's not a critical thing, this seems like something
we want
>>>> >> > to
>>>> >> > put to bed.  Tim tried taking a run at this for one of these
last
>>>> >> > week,
>>>> >> > and I'd like to try again.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Would some number of days of discussion (like 3) plus a vote
be an
>>>> >> > acceptable way to get this resolved?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Yes.  IMHO there is better value in performing a quick comparison

>>>> >> and
>>>> >> choosing one to work on and improve, compared to spending a long

>>>> >> time
>>>> >> evaluating the two/three impls.
>>>> >
>>>> > In the case of java.math I think we should pick the new 
>>>> > implementation
>>>> > (H-935 which combines H-380 and H-199 and some of H-551) to improve
>>>> > from now on.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't surprise me that you'd say that :)
>>>>
>>>> What is your opinion for RMI?
>>
>> In the case of RMI we have been working comparing both implementations
>> (I'm currently working on the final review and conclusion of the 
>> document)
>> and my suggestion based on to what we've seen so far is that we should
>> chose the Intel contributed rmi and work to improve it; needless to say,
>> we are willing to help improving the rmi package if needed.
>>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> PS: I'll post the DOC as soon as I have it finished.
>>
>>>
>>>I am the wrong Daniel to answer that.  I don't know enough about rmi
>>>to compare the two implementations.
>>>
>>>Daniel
>>
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> 

Mime
View raw message