Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of oliver.deakin@googlemail.com
 designates 64.233.182.185 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=jHIIoBw98kNw7+VQlgS4saL7rZh70Cw/kCPi+Edo0cuP5/nt0rwPI7WA44GzKRFAPronKnLEBIJDCjaLWAybMBpv2/7Kr47K5axGj9Bi8aohhskmtZskDSxag7pkUipXhBgXBwoPrLPb6qWMHq7W5RHnl7wyyGlx33Iz2/rM3lI=
Message-ID: <47BED0EE.40703@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:41:02 +0000
From: Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [JDKTools][JDWP]Let's start JDWP java6 updating
References: <5c8e69f0802211930r1f27c40fwd0c3cbfa8aa9075a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47BE9745.5050602@googlemail.com>
 <47BEC295.2070604@apache.org>	 <47BEC59F.1070804@googlemail.com>
 <b6cb498e0802220530p7e76d228ibb2277051bb47108@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b6cb498e0802220530p7e76d228ibb2277051bb47108@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ivan Popov wrote:
> I agree with Gregory, this is very strange and unexpected usage of
> JDWP agent. It's not supported by JDWP specification and thus may vary
> in different implementation depending on how implementation handles
> errors
>
> The main problem is that technically JDWP protocol is symmetric,
> that's why it's possible for JDWP agents to connect to each other and
> even perform handshake. After successfull handshake several JDWP
> packets are transferred over JDWP connection between the agents.
>
> There are three kinds of JDWP packets (commands, replies, events)
> which have similar structure. JDWP spec defines that commands may only
> transfer to agent, while replies and events may only transfer from
> agent. In this particular case this rule is broken. Current Harmony's
> implementation relies on this order and reports errors if it is broken
> (may be not in a very good manner). RI's implementation seems just
> silently ignoring unexpected packets and does not print errors.
>   

Hi Ivan,

Yes, I know this is an unusual usage of JDWP - I thought that the 
"command not implemented EVENT/COMPOSITE[64/100]" error was indicating 
some missing functionality, but if you believe that this is just caused 
by handshake failure then I agree that it should be ok to leave it as is 
(or print a better diagnostic message).

Thanks,
Oliver

> It's quite easy to modify Harmony's agent to recognize such situation
> and provide more meaningful diagnostics. I don't think that RI's
> behavior with silently ignoring errors is better in this case.
>
> Thanks.
> Ivan
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Oliver Deakin
> <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>>  > Oliver Deakin said the following on 22.02.2008 12:35:
>>  >> Hi Jimmy,
>>  >>
>>  >> This is a great idea, but I have a feeling there may still need to be
>>  >> some work done on the current version. I have noticed the following:
>>  >>
>>  >> 1) You cannot launch Harmony with
>>  >> java -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=n,address=8888
>>  >>
>>  >> without specifying a class at the end of the command line. This is
>>  >> not a major issue, just a difference to the RI. If you run the above
>>  >> command line, the launcher short circuits to the launcher command
>>  >> line help and exits.*
>>  >> *
>>  >> 2) If I try to launch two Harmony VMs using the following command lines:
>>  >> java
>>  >> -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=y,address=8888
>>  >> HelloWorld
>>  >> java -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=n,address=8888 HelloWorld
>>  >
>>  > I am not sure I understand the intention to run these two command
>>  > lines. To connect to a JDWP agent you need a real JDWP client, e.g.
>>  > Eclipse or jdb. AFAIU JDWP agent cannot talk to itself over JDWP
>>  > protocol.
>>  >
>>
>>  Hi Gregory,
>>
>>  Im not saying that this is a standard way to connect, but it appears to
>>  expose a difference between implementations. You can run these two
>>  command lines on the RI without any errors whatsoever. Although this is
>>  not normal practise it leaves me wondering what the cause of these
>>  errors are on Harmony.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>  Oliver
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  Oliver Deakin
>>  Unless stated otherwise above:
>>  IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
>>  Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU