harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Should we make portlib a separate component?
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:03:02 GMT
Hello Xiao Feng,

Let me explain my point so it won't sound strange. I believe it is
important to position our interests carefully because this might be a
sensitive topic. When open source gurus are asked how should I start
my open source project, the usual answer is "Please, don't". This is
because open source enthusiasts are sparse and their efforts should be
concentrated and focused on main trends instead of being scattered
around.

Having two porting layers in Apache makes them both less elaborate and
fine. The feasible question APR team would ask is "Do you have any
feedback about our porting layer? Why are you choosing to split a
community instead of communicating to us first? We will gladly answer
your request." That is why before we would suggest the new porting API
initiative the list of concerns should be gathered. Ilya Berezhnyuk
told me that he would share some experience about APR pools, atomics,
size and community in this thread if he got some free time.

> That only makes sense if we have to choose between APR and a non-Apache project.

I want to listen your concerns about possibility of using use
non-Apache interfaces for a majority of a porting layer. Generally I
think that  virtualization epoch replaced the epoch of porting layers
which adapt your application to the specific OS. While OS interfaces
evolve into mature ones and have to become more compatible to each
other, we may think of choosing standard Linux APIs or gcc primitives
as a porting layer, and implement wrappers for windows platform. For
other unix platforms this would remove a good deal of wrappers. This
would also answer Android's concern about too much wrappers to reach
the device OS API.

Thanks.



On Feb 5, 2008 4:58 AM, Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008 11:34 PM, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Mark,
> > Doesn't autoconf insert GPL license in the code by default, does it?
> >
> > Generally modularity looks tempting. I'm not yet convinced that we
> > should generally move away from using APR instead of moving APR closer
> > to what we want. The synergy with another Apache project seems to be a
> > good Apache practice.
>
> It sounds strange to use APR only because it's an Apache project. That
> only makes sense if we have to choose between APR and a non-Apache
> project.
>
> Thanks,
> xiaofeng
>
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 4, 2008 6:18 PM, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Should portlib be a separate component like classlib, drlvm, jdktools,
> > > etc.?
> > >
> > > Currently portlib is closely associated with classlib.  It is built in
> > > the same way as any other classlib module.  But really it isn't just
> > > another classlib module.  It's a porting layer for classlib, DRLVM,
> > > jdktools, etc.
> > >
> > > It is suppose to have a well-defined API ... but we changed the API
> > > without a second thought when the patch for HARMONY-2236, for example,
> > > was committed.  I'm under no illusions that having portlib as a separate
> > > component will stop this happening but I think it would help us think
> > > about it a little differently.
> > >
> > > It would also enable us to apply versioning (branching/tagging) to
> > > portlib separately from classlib which in turn would allow us to
> > > manage changes to the API more easily.  Classlib/DRLVM could make
> > > compile/runtime decisions based on the version of the portlib API that
> > > is found.
> > >
> > > Separate versioning of this component should make it easier to make
> > > changes and extend the portlib to cover additional requirements.  For
> > > example, to better support DRLVM, particularly if it moved away from
> > > using APR which I seem to recall was mentioned (again) recently.
> > >
> > > It would also give us the flexibility to choose to have portlib use a
> > > different build mechanism in future - such as autoconf - if we decided
> > > that was more suitable for a pure native code component.
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >  Mark.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > With best regards,
> > Alexei,
> > ESSD, Intel
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
>



-- 
With best regards,
Alexei,
ESSD, Intel

Mime
View raw message