harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Loenko" <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2Stuart: [general] Removing "endorsed" packages from JAPI reports
Date Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:22:38 GMT
well, let's resume discussion whether Harmony must contain implementation
of the endorsed specs of the same version as RI or may contain a newer version

Tim, could you please comment on that?

Thanks,
Mikhail

2007/4/26, Stuart Ballard <stuart.a.ballard@gmail.com>:
> It's possible. I'm not sure I agree with doing so, though. From my
> (brief) reading of that page, just because they allow alternative
> implementations and they're standardized outside the JCP doesn't mean
> that the compatibility requirements are less.
>
> If you want to provide a japi status page of your own that excludes
> these packages, I can certainly provide guidance (and scripts) for how
> to do it.
>
> Stuart.
>
> On 4/26/07, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Stuart
> >
> > resending in case you missed it on the lst
> >
> > thanks,
> > Mikhail
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>
> > Date: 25.04.2007 15:15
> > Subject: Re: [general] Removing "endorsed" packages from JAPI reports
> > To: dev@harmony.apache.org
> >
> >
> > 2007/4/25, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>:
> > > Yep, it is possible of course.
> > > I've added this task to my nearest-future-to-do-list but have not
> > > complete it yet. :)
> >
> > Alexey
> >
> > I was talking about regular statistics that we refer at
> > http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/classlibrary/status.html
> > My suggestion was to add one more stats: without "endorsed" packages
> >
> > The statistics itself is located at
> > http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/...
> >
> > Not sure that there is write access there from your
> > nearest-future-to-do-list  ;)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> > >
> > > I'll finish it this week.
> > >
> > > SY, Alexey
> > >
> > > 2007/4/25, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > Hi Stuart,
> > > >
> > > > As it was discussed in the thread I'm copying, we are free
> > > > to replace classes in the packages listed here [1] by "classes implementing
> > > > a more recent version of the API as defined by the appropriate
> > > > standards body" [2]
> > > >
> > > > Would it be possible to generate JAPI diffs not taking into account packages
> > > > listed in [1] so that we get clear picture about amount of API work remained?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Mikhail
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/standards/index.html
> > > > [2] http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/README.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2007/1/23, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
> > > > > Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> > > > > > 2007/1/17, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>:
> > > > > >> so what do we do?  I'm hoping that we can find a way to
achieve this
> > > > > >> w/o us having to have "shadow" or duplicate code here...
> > > > > > That would be great. Can you suggest something?
> > > > >
> > > > > As Alexey wrote, the level of CORBA support in the RI 5.0 [1] is
> > > > > predominantly 2.3.1 based.  However, we are free to implement a later
> > > > > version of the Corba spec and still be compliant since the CORBA
code is
> > > > > an "endorsed standard" (see [2]).
> > > > >
> > > > > In this case I suggest we support Yoko in their goal of implementing
> > > > > corba 2.4 (and ignore the JAPI diffs).
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/idl/compliance.html
> > > > > [2] http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/README.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Tim
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://sab39.netreach.com/
>

Mime
View raw message