harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Date Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:56:44 GMT
Nathan Beyer wrote:
> Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project isn't
> going anywhere.

That was my thought too.

What are people using then if not BCEL?  ASM (asm.objectweb.org)?


Tim

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again.  I had a conversation
>> with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it seems very
>> unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future.  There is
>> apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no ongoing
>> development apart from that.  There is some interest in testing a release
>> candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's anyone
>> available to build one.
>>
>> In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing an
>> non-release build into Harmony?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sian
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/bcel-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg01034.html
>>
>>
>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new release :)
>>>
>>> 2008/6/12, Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com>:
>>>> Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
>>>>  features.  There are a few useful methods that I would expect to see
>>> there
>>>>  that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
>>>>
>>>>  I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily switch
>>> to
>>>>  unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release was
>> 2
>>>>  years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of years
>>> due
>>>>  to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very
>>> high.  Also
>>>>  the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't affect
>>> that
>>>>  much of the class library.
>>>>
>>>>  However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is
>> unlikely,
>>> but
>>>>  as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I will
>> do
>>> that
>>>>  first.
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Sian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
>>>>  > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
>>>>  > status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch to
>>>>  > bleeding sources..
>>>>  >
>>>>  > SY, Alexey
>>>>  >
>>>>  > 2008/6/12, Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com>:
>>>>  > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest
>>> released
>>>>  > >  version (from June 2006).  However it doesn't support all the
>> Java
>>> 5
>>>>  > class
>>>>  > >  file features, which is making it complicated to implement
>> pack200
>>> (and
>>>>  > also
>>>>  > >  means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have
>>>>  > one).  There
>>>>  > >  is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think there's
>>> much
>>>>  > active
>>>>  > >  development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information
>> about
>>> when
>>>>  > a
>>>>  > >  possible 5.3 might be released.
>>>>  > >
>>>>  > >  I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available
>>> source for
>>>>  > >  BCEL.  Does that sound possible?
>>>>  > >
>>>>  > >  Thanks,
>>>>  > >
>>>>  > >  Sian
>>>>  > >
>>>>  > >
>>>>  > >
>>>>  > >  --
>>>>  > >  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
>>>>  > >
>>>>  >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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