harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Petrenko" <alexey.a.petre...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2Stuart: [general] Removing "endorsed" packages from JAPI reports
Date Mon, 07 May 2007 05:58:02 GMT
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 :)

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