harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stuart Ballard" <stuart.a.ball...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2Stuart: [general] Removing "endorsed" packages from JAPI reports
Date Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:05:51 GMT
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