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 mloenko@gmail.com designates
 66.249.82.225 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=QUSNbjzCUcX2v3D01cnEk27IVlrMk1GPNruajaJIojbHDGH31hKSF4s+tBET5hrWR4tiNNYx/aGOiFyC0bfKLgmV9MPIMM5cW54IdNAB4s+k7V2K/KCx13kOWE3FJklu/8aokv7dTg0sU/ZFP8+yUIRinTOmFkae1M9HMxgLUQw=
Message-ID: <906dd82e0704250115k1c2c87e8u296b6ee486bbd4d8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:15:51 +0700
From: "Mikhail Loenko" <mloenko@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [general] Removing "endorsed" packages from JAPI reports
In-Reply-To: <c3755b3a0704250056j3cb1483bm8705f755a17b1f5a@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <906dd82e0704242250k705cc566m90ca2660976e52b9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c3755b3a0704250056j3cb1483bm8705f755a17b1f5a@mail.gmail.com>

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
> > >
> > >
> >
>