Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of t.p.ellison@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.182.186 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=DVK4yfKK2zN3scHKwmDnBXDsXaVvwZQyxJwPfQk7WRJ8t4w8njXFPHJcNmTarI7a+GGE1cgXJuUxZlwvdxEHSUwFueXU/gcqzY/aYiLR+1OyvZnCeJ0zV6aFuoAvxwue9PYfhOlgcQtnAwpfvRJBOJWvwZhATCR6ltuSvlC/eKg=
Message-ID: <455F97C1.3040800@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:31:13 +0000
From: Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [heads up] the importance of 'reversed' API completion
References: <455E74EB.5070309@apache.org> <455F0050.3070503@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <455F0050.3070503@pobox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>> As shown in the graphical history of harmony at
>>
>>  http://67.86.14.213:10000/harmony.png
>>
>> we are currently at 96.39% of API completion (if we don't count the
>> SerialID differences and the final static values), and we are
>> continuously growing there.
>>
>> But there is also another index, the "reversed" API completion that
>> measures how much code the RI didn't implement that we did.
>>
>> Here, a 100% means that all that code that we have implemented in those
>> public packages is available in the RI.
>>
>> In order to achieve WORA, the TCK mandates that both direct and reverse
>> completion be 100%.
>>
> 
> I don't know if that's necessarily true.  The spec license mandates if
> for java?.* packages, but not for things like omg.*, and I'm not sure
> that the TCK would complain about packages outside of the java*.* space.
> 
> 
>> I suggest we start to pay attention to both.
>>
>> Here is a reverse-japi report:
>>
>>  http://67.86.14.213:10000/results/latest/reverse-japi.html
>>
> 
> agreed.

Look like there are things in there to investigate, but I agree that
there appears to be too many packages flagged.

Stefano can you run it with the actual SE API packages?

Regards,
Tim

> (and please can you put a proper [<subject>] next time like [classlib],
> since this applies to classlib)
> 
> geir
> 

-- 

Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.