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 Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:40:54 GMT
>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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message