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][concurrent] java.util.concurrent module proposal
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:02:41 GMT

Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>>>> Nathan Beyer wrote:
>>>>>> I've checked in my proposal for the java.util.concurrent module at
>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/s
>>>>>> andbox/juc-proposal.
>>>>> You didn't just check in a proposal, you also checked in
>>>>> Doug Lea et al's code.  Nobody should commit other people's code into
>>>>> svn this way.
>>>> The code is under public domain license, so there should be no problem
>>>> doing it since Doug et al produce no builds, and they suggested we do
>>>> this.
>>> (not trying to be provocative, just trying to understand)
>>> "they" = the concurrency authors?
>>> "do this" = produce builds or check the code into our repository?
> Did I get this right?

Sorry - I missed this - "they" really was Doug, and "do this" is "take
the code".  Checking it in simply is good practice for peace of mind.

>>>> it's also in our sandbox, and we're not redistributing it yet.
>>>>> Was there a reason to create .../classlib/trunk/sandbox? wouldn't
>>>>> .../classlib/sandbox make more sense?
>>>> We already had the sandbox under /trunk
>>> No we didn't.
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/sandbox/?view=log&pathrev=421111
>>> Perhaps it was created in the trunk by mistake.
>> Oh, right.  Sorry - there was a sandbox in enhanced/trunk which is what
>> I thought it was checked into...
> So does anyone object to the proposed code being moved out of the
> enhanced subtree while we stare at it, thereby preserving our definition
> of 'enhanced'.

I sort of do because we are utterly inconsistent about this, but if you
look at my other message, if we just shove this into /standard/ the
whole problem seems to magically go away anyway, so go ahead.

>>>>> I see copying the code as a one-way operation.  We can hope to track
>>>>> updates to the original code thoroughly, but I don't see any fixes made
>>>>> in Harmony making it back directly into Doug's repository.
>>>> Why not?  We just offer them to Doug, and he can accept or reject.
>>> It strikes me as a strange model.  If there is a well-run, active
>>> project with compatible license elsewhere I'm struggling to see why we
>>> would not just join in there, and all enjoy the fruits of the combined
>>> work <g>.  Maybe this was discussed as part of the suggestion from Doug?
>> Doug just suggested that we'd be well served using his code since it's
>> public domain and the definitive implementation.
>> If there is a well-run, active project with compatible license
>> elsewhere, please point it out.  As far as I know, this is the only
>> implementation out there, and is why it's taken and used by IBM, BEA,
>> Apple and Sun in the same way we're proposing.
> (IBM does not source the code directly from there, but that is a
> different matter)
>> Why not just "enjoy the fruits" of what's being offered as public domain
>> by arguably the world's top expert on the subject?  While we have lots
>> of talent around here, I'd be very surprised if we could do better.
> No arguments from me, that was the point that I was making too.  Let's
> work with that project where we need to do so, and take their code as a
> dependency for Harmony.

That's what we're doing.

>>>>> Is there a reason why we want to fork this code?  I'd rather we worked
>>>>> with Doug (contributing directly to his project to make it more widely
>>>>> usable etc).
>>>> Tim, isn't this what we discussed? This isn't a fork in the community
>>>> sense, it's what amounts to a "read only" copy of the code for purposes
>>>> of building, but tracking what Doug does?  We've been very clear about that.
>>> Do you think it is reasonable to work with that group to make the code
>>> usable by Harmony as well as Sun?
>> Yes, of course, although it seems usable now...
> Not without the modifications that nathan has been working on.

We want to avoid modifying their code.

>>> I guess the alternative is that we replicate Sun's internal APIs if we
>>> want to make the incoming code read-only (and presumably put it into the
>>> depends/ directory).
>> I don't understand the bit about the depends directory, but yes, I think
>> that using this code as-is would require us to implement
>> sun.misc.Unsafe, and I do think it's a reasonable thing to suggest to
>> Doug that a neutral package is chosen for this....  like
>> "org.apache.harmony.Unsafe" :)
> Now we are talking ;-)  In fact, if Sun want to publish the API I'm even
> prepared to give up the o.a.h. bit <g>

That works for me too, although the joy of seeing "harmony" in a Sun VM
package dep would be a hoot...

> <snip>
>>>>>> * Determine the best place to integrate the TCK source, which is
>>>>>> available at Doug Lea's site.
>>>>> Are you serious?  Why would we copy the TCK into Harmony too?!
>>>> Because that isn't the TCK, but simply testcases?
>>> I haven't checked, I took Nathan at his word.
>> They are labeled as TCK tests, but by definition, the TCK only comes
>> from the Spec lead.
>> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/test/tck/
>> So from our POV, while this is code that is used in the TCK, it's not
>> the TCK, and if we accept the public domain terms, we should be free to
>> use them to augment our test suite.
> I agree (modulo the general 'taking code' discussion underway).
> <snip>
>>> I thought we were trying to reach a conclusion which is why I was
>>> surprised to see the code appear.
>> We are still trying to reach a conclusion, actually two of them - the
>> techincal conclusion, and the process/legal one.
>> I think having the code around to stare at will make the technical
>> conclusion easier (and my first comment is that we shouldn't be
>> modifying Doug' stuff, even just to change package name of atomic support).
> The code has always been around, but whatever.  If having it local helps
> then I'm fine with it being in the standard area of the repository for
> reference.
> Perhaps we should have the discussion about modifying the concurrency
> code for interaction with the VM / class library over on the
> concurrency-interest list?

That's very reasonable, but I think that getting it to work as a proto
using the work that Nathan as done and other help would be beneficial,
as we can then go to them with working code and a good argument as to
why they need to do this.

>> At the same time, we can resolve the legal/process issues...
> Yep.  if we decide that we can take an unmodified binary-only then this
> becomes much simpler too; but that is undecided as yet.
> p.s. I'm logging off for ~4 days so will be quiet for a bit.
> 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