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
 209.85.132.245 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=iP2Ik5VyoCJPyBGAeduarj0I+208RYQ/HxUIzGFR2/cfTJtV6NJZ8CxHxl2mQp1I7Rb7yT6S2xBZUKb9PnOjMJkjycvS7J8KBN3b+hPH1NG3G7VngveCZ7UkYO8dMiDxwdWPdbrYUqdSdMRnGzX09fJ3rd4d9RIJVyaZZzo+RvY=
Message-ID: <906dd82e0704260422k3556dd55i40a14a3080d6b4bb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:22:38 +0700
From: "Mikhail Loenko" <mloenko@gmail.com>
To: "Stuart Ballard" <stuart.a.ballard@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2Stuart: [general] Removing "endorsed" packages from JAPI reports
Cc: dev@harmony.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <ba76afd90704260405l75102cd2l30de91ec940866b0@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: <906dd82e0704252318m5cff5ef0kcfd43fdd2421c566@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ba76afd90704260405l75102cd2l30de91ec940866b0@mail.gmail.com>

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/
>