Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 28925 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2006 03:34:18 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Jul 2006 03:34:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 59302 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jul 2006 03:34:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 59269 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jul 2006 03:34:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 59255 invoked by uid 99); 27 Jul 2006 03:34:15 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:34:15 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of mike.fursov@gmail.com designates 64.233.182.191 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.182.191] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.182.191) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:34:14 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id x4so29773nfb for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:33:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=qRCKbVsyhn+8FbrpJEDbdsdn3uB9lLekXB7mB79RN07LLUGUcXD0LzasRKQpNBN8gu6gUgIYal6ATzxHOIS2TOtzBnFfhQHSD1nYN6ikb/DOvjsssXyS3UrAnsJhqP7g1sS3l/wUuUf39p6914C82MLKBZptQ4L/5AlLA31EFTc= Received: by 10.78.177.3 with SMTP id z3mr3562995hue; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.193.11 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:33:53 +0700 From: "Mikhail Fursov" To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Re: [optimization] Algorithmic tricks In-Reply-To: <636fd28e0607261300m72203235pfe0e40043c3d1a59@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_20616_4005190.1153971233003" References: <44C64333.60503@apache.org> <834b3bd50607260220o60761f85la8fc7d3f312e697a@mail.gmail.com> <834b3bd50607260726u73308b69v2efe2d54721dfb1a@mail.gmail.com> <636fd28e0607261300m72203235pfe0e40043c3d1a59@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_20616_4005190.1153971233003 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 7/27/06, Alex Blewitt wrote: > > > > What effect would there be if we were communicating (via RMI) with an > implementation of a remote VM that isn't harmony? I.e.,if we have a > String "asdfasdfasdf" which hashes to (say) 8 on a Harmony VM, and a > remote implementation uses a hash of 12 for the same value, would that > cause any problems in an RMI layer? Do we care about such a scenario? > I do not think this is a problem. We can't be serialization-compatible with RI because our classes have a different set of private fields and only interfaces are the same. -- Mikhail Fursov ------=_Part_20616_4005190.1153971233003--