harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stepan Mishura" <stepan.mish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2Stuart: [general] Removing "endorsed" packages from JAPI reports
Date Mon, 07 May 2007 08:16:50 GMT
On 5/7/07, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> I've counted japitool result for the "endorsed" packages as I promised before.
> RI5 vs. Harmony M1 result is 98.33%. Harmony M1 vs. RI5 result is 99.78%.
> The results looks pretty good :)
>

I had a quick look at generated reports and found that column 'minor'
was not included. That makes statistics to look a bit better :-) As I
see the column counts SerialVersionUID incompatibilities. Do you think
they can be ignored?

-Stepan.

> The results have been published on the web [1], [2]. Number of
> discovered issues is fixed in svn.
>
> SY, Alexey
>
> [1]http://people.apache.org/~apetrenko/japitool/jdk5vsharmony5.javajavax.html
> [2]http://people.apache.org/~apetrenko/japitool/harmony5vsjdk5.javajavax.html
>
> 2007/4/26, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
> > 2007/4/26, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>:
> > > And we can do this ourselves...
> >
> > thanks for volunteering!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> > >
> > > 2007/4/26, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > What we need I think is completeness metrics. Since those differences
> > > > that are caused by newer specs are OK, they don't affect completeness.
> > > >
> > > > So the real API completeness might be higher than what we see now.
> > > > Having the real picture would help us to first stick those really unimplemented
> > > > classes remained and second better position our state
> > > >
> > > > So it's good to have both: compatibility that Stuart is currently measuring
> > > > and completeness to what we want to achive.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Mikhail
> > > >
> > > > 2007/4/26, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
> > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > > > > 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?
> > > > >
> > > > > Only to say that the SE spec allows for us to implement a later version
> > > > > of these endorsed external specifications; however, Stuart is measuring
> > > > > compatibility to Sun's implementation, not compliance.  We should
expect
> > > > > to see a difference to the extent that the Corba code is incompatible
> > > > > with previous versions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Tim

Mime
View raw message