harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zakharov, Vasily M" <vasily.m.zakha...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [classlib] resolution of rmi/math/crypto duplication?
Date Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:48:00 GMT

Thank you very much for your work!

Here are my "fixit"s to the doc:

# Intel RMI

This package complies with J2SE 1.4.2 specification. Interoperability
with RI has been taken into care (through an intensive and exhaustive
wire protocol analysis); package has proved to be interoperable with RI.
Most deprecated functionality is supported, as well as 5.0 features (as
far as it was possible using 1.4.2 language). Activation Daemon and RMI
Compiler are also present.

# Intel test suite

The tests include a basic set of functional JUnit test cases to prove
the core functionality of the package. The tests verify
marshalling/unmarshalling of various types, registry operations, HTTP
and CGI connectivity, basic functionality of the activation system.

Vasily Zakharov
Intel Middleware Products Division

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:danielgandara@neosur.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:11 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib] resolution of rmi/math/crypto duplication?


    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.



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
>>>> >> > to
>>>> >> > put to bed.  Tim tried taking a run at this for one of these
>>>> >> > 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
>>>> >> 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
>>>> > 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
>> (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
>> chose the Intel contributed rmi and work to improve it; needless to
>> 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.
>>>> geir

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