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 firepure@gmail.com designates
 64.233.166.179 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=XpmLjoug3dqn/sjj+33j4yPR0TmRpZF4bz/W7hux7mE1070+av8SioWrNFn4vbF18K6QxX1sHWj+8Don/6Y3n3dzkl96KMPcC7BwXzTqcMWI4b2EeDIjyORzBNyfEjKvoihIZPOpTVVjpoheUGyvMDdcLnDuWsJz0qczMjjDewM=
Message-ID: <5c8e69f0802220322g18d30f33k41aede96e8dbb9a9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:22:27 +0800
From: "Jimmy,Jing Lv" <firepure@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [JDKTools][JDWP]Let's start JDWP java6 updating
In-Reply-To: <c30d70960802220234l28eb5ed6pfa0cc653c8680458@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <5c8e69f0802211930r1f27c40fwd0c3cbfa8aa9075a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c30d70960802220234l28eb5ed6pfa0cc653c8680458@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

2008/2/22, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>:
> Jimmy,
>
>  I fully support your idea, but cannot follow the discussion fully. The
>  old thread mostly discussed a shared memory protocol, didn't it? This
>  thread no longer mentions a shared memory, but discusses an API update
>  instead. May be all these things are parts of the whole picture, but
>  the picture slips out of my mind. I would suggest being merciful to my
>  google-weakened brain and write some justifications of the decision
>  taken.
>

     Yes, I never forget shared memory, but it seems we need more
information of that (according to the conclusion of last discussion).
However java6 updating is easier to work on and we've got all
information on java spec, as a result, IMO, we'd better start from the
easy beginning, and leave hard work alone until we find some other way
to resolve it, do you think so? :)   (Maybe someone already has a plan
on it :)
      BTW, as today is friday, have a nice weekend :)

>  For example, I believe Mikhail L. justification: "I don't think that
>  time and efforts are an issue. The time flies when you are having fun
>  :)" is quite explanatory. Or you may come up with something more
>  rational.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>
>  On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Jimmy,Jing Lv <firepure@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > Hi All,
>  >
>  >      As discussed before, we can start JDWP updating and improving.
>  >  IMHO, let's start from the easiest way, updating to java 6.
>  >      My proposal is:
>  >  1. Setup a branch of JDKTools for java6 in harmony repository
>  >  2. add/improve JDWP functions into java6 level. As the main updating
>  >  for java6 JDWP is about JDWP-protocol, it seems no much effect on VM
>  >  and debugger.
>  >
>  >      As M5 freeze will be done at the end of this week,  may start
>  >  from next week on.  Any comments/suggestions/Volunteers? Thanks!
>  >
>  >  --
>  >
>  >  Best Regards!
>  >
>  >  Jimmy, Jing Lv
>  >  China Software Development Lab, IBM
>  >
>
>
>
>
> --
>  With best regards,
>
> Alexei
>


-- 

Best Regards!

Jimmy, Jing Lv
China Software Development Lab, IBM