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 t.p.ellison@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.90.178 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=liSVBuu8C0x4SGn99nWZcaZwrxmN/fku9FtIp9zJxggI+s6aSP4juZY+zPOIi1EAGe
         sXEkIVIfC+GxH8QvcUHwK/N/+/spbTUz3+VmtFarD7nB5aEKXi/sGwgs7+yCCLIwJAFR
         pmSQO3eJwQTLr/ReVffIYc0TpAUyvT+vdjqH8=
Message-ID: <48846E45.70207@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:08:53 +0100
From: Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
References: <fc2fc95c0806120310g4e68972dg537a85c80ce99fb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c3755b3a0806120654scf1b9efp32b95731de878c36@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fc2fc95c0806120756x5dc4390crbd5d175ddece2df9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c3755b3a0806120932v7b5c5cdcse897192eb670eb19@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fc2fc95c0807170726r1bac22d2j9c155bd84f5ce3c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3b3f27c60807181904o3f7a84f8yf3a40311f2d0c320@mail.gmail.com>
 <fc2fc95c0807210356h1005b8f1wa00853a35c64627c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fc2fc95c0807210356h1005b8f1wa00853a35c64627c@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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
> 
> 
>