harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sian January" <sianjanu...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Date Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:44:10 GMT
Ok - i'll have a look at ASM and report back.

On 21/07/2008, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sian January wrote:
>
>> ASM might be a good candidate.  I haven't looked closely to see if it
>> provides everything we need, but it was apparently designed to be as small
>> and as fast as possible, which would be good for pack200.  It's under a
>> BSD
>> license - would that be ok for us?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html)
>
> We would will still have to keep BCEL 5.2 while Yoko depends on it, but I
>> don't see why we can't use something different for pack200 and any other
>> Harmony uses.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> On 19/07/2008, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project isn't
>>> going anywhere.
>>>
>>> -Nathan
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message