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] Integrating into builds and snapshot
Date Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:21:01 GMT

Nathan Beyer wrote:
> Now that we're getting some good submissions to make the
> java.util.concurrent code to work with DRLVM, I'd like make a proposal for
> getting the code in the Class Library and a part of our regular builds,
> tests and snapshots.
>>>From a technical/code integration standpoint, the go ahead assumption is
> that Harmony will have VMs implement a subset of the 'sun.misc.Unsafe'
> class, such that the concurrent code, most of which is in the public domain,
> from the Concurrency Interest Site [1] can be used as-is, as least to the
> greatest extent possible. Are there any major dissents to this?

This is my understanding of what we already agreed to, and I'm getting a
note from Doug about the code provenance.

> Now, the issue that's of most contention, at least from our past
> conversations, is the code management. First and foremost, we must consider
> the realities of the situation.
> 1. The concurrency interest group, the JSR-166 expert group, Doug Lea and
> others are NOT producing distributable builds, so we can not integrate the
> code like we do other components, like Xerces, Xalan, MX4J, etc. I don't
> want to speak for anyone here, so I'll qualify this by saying that I haven't
> been told this explicitly, so this is just my inference from discussions and
> documentation. If this is not the case, then someone please speak up. There
> is an experimental JAR on the site [1], but it's meant specifically to run
> with the Sun RI and it contains code outside of the java.util.concurrent
> package space. Additionally, the TCK tests from the site [1], which we'd
> like to use are not packaged in any way.

Right - we should be able to slurp the tests in the same way as we do
the rest of it.  In fact, we are less worried about the tests because we
don't ship those.

And lets just call them "tests", not "TCK test", because while they are
used in the TCK,  something we get from Sun, they are just "tests" :)

> 2. The code on the site [1] is only accessible through a ViewCVS Web
> interface. As such, it's not exactly easy to interact with in terms of
> created an automated checkout of the source to integrate into a build. One
> of my thoughts was using the svn:externals feature to download source
> dynamically, but there are additional issues that make that especially
> difficult; these issues follow. Besides that, I'm not sure that
> svn:externals works with arbitrary URLs that aren't SVN repositories.

Who cares?  We're not going to slurp the code from their site for

> 3. There is at least one source file that MUST NOT be used from the site [1]
> because it's not open to the public domain, the CopyOnWriteArrayList [2].
> This will require at least one class to be developed as part of the Harmony
> Class Library.


> 4. It's currently NOT feasible for Harmony to use the HEAD version of the
> code, as it has been updated to utilize several Java 6 APIs, which Harmony
> does not current provide, not even in stub form. Additionally, there is only
> one viable CVS tag (JSR166_PFD), but this tag is two years old and some of
> the code in it does not compile on current JLS3 compilers. This has been
> discussed on the mailing list previously; please search the archives if
> you're curious. As such, any checkouts out code that compiles would have to
> be done either using a date-based checkout (not really possible with
> ViewCVS) or a specific revision number for each file would have to be
> determined.
> Tactical Proposal (next 6 to 12 to ?? months) - 
> My proposals for integration of the concurrency code is to retrieve the
> latest possible codebase from the site [1], which is open to the public
> domain and check it into our repository.
> * This code would include the TCK tests. 


> * From a build standpoint, this code would be handled just like any other
> module. 

For now, we stuff it into the harmony/standard part of the repo.

> * As a general rule, this code would NOT be subject to normal code patches.
> The suggested process would be to submit patches and fixes to the
> concurrency interest group [1] and if/when the patches are accepted and
> committed, the code can synchronized to get the updates. Upon occasion
> (every few months), code updates can be take from the site [1], if deemed
> necessary and appropriate. 

Right - I think people can and should submit the patches here to us
first, and we decide to reject or go to EG with them.  Of course, people
can independently talk to the EG, but they shouldn't try to represent

> * A minor issue is where the stub for the sun.misc.Unsafe class would be
> placed (for compiles); my suggestion would be to just make it part of the
> luni-kernel-stubs, but we can look at a concurrent-kernel-stubs JAR.


> Strategic Proposal -
> Once we have code working, at least in a snapshot state, we can attempt to
> do a number of this to ease the process and discrepancies.
> * Once a CopyOnWriteArrayList implementation is completed, we can submit it
> back to the concurrency group for inclusion.


> * Design and propose an alternate "Unsafe" service interface that can be
> submitted to the concurrency interest group for use by all VMs and Class
> Libraries.

Well, ok.  But is there anything wrong with it?  It think a better first
step is to simply ask them to standardize it into an non-sun namespace
> Unless there are any substantial objections, with practical and workable
> alternative solutions, I plan on moving forward with this approach next
> weekend.

Except for donating COWArrayList (which is a good idea), I thought this
was exactly how we were moving forward anyway? :)


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