harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Deakin <oliver.dea...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [JDKTools][JDWP] Shared memory transport
Date Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:19:57 GMT

Jimmy,Jing Lv wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2008/3/13, Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com>:
>   
>> Hi Jimmy/Alexei,
>>
>>  <SNIP!>
>>
>>     
>
> Really cool !
>
> BTW, do you need to modify the build file or some common header file
> of JWDP Oliver? I'm  merging currect JDWP with Harmony Portlib and
> nearly get finished (expect for a minor problem that portlib is lack
> of useful select and process APIs as we already know when working on
> NIO), and I may need to changing makefile and some SocketTransport and
> TransportManager implementation. Please let me know if you also need
> to modify such files so that we may not meet conflict. :)
>
>   

Hi Jimmy,

I do need to modify the jpda build.xml, but it's quite a small change to 
add a Windows only make target for the dt_shmem library.

Regarding header files/makefiles, I need to make the following changes 
which may cause conflicts:
 - In LastTransportError.h remove the include of SocketTransport_pd.h
 - In both the unix and windows directories, move the dt_socket 
makefiles and exports.txt/dt_socket.def files into the actual dt_socket 
directories so they do not conflict with the dt_shmem makefiles (and 
make a one line change in the build.xml to point to the new location of 
the build files).

I am ready to make these changes today if they are ok with you. However, 
I can hold off if you wish to make your changes first?

Regards,
Oliver

>>  Regards,
>>  Oliver
>>
>>  Jimmy,Jing Lv wrote:
>>  > 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
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  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


Mime
View raw message