harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VM] On-demand class library parsing is ready to commit
Date Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:49:57 GMT
Hello Wenlong,

The intention of the following review is to improve the readability of
the code. Please find my comments preceded with patch line numbers and
fix anything you find worthy to fix.

9
excessive comment length

9-
missed description of parameters (e.g. @param mapFile <description>)
and return value
do we need to pass mapFile through the parameter chain? may it be an element of

22, 24
we don't need both versions of each function, do we?
using one version (esp. of SetBCPElement) would make the whole code size smaller

it would be easier for me to review your deltas of functions if you
don't make the full copies of them

37
seems that environment.h has c/apr style set of includes
can we hide <map> and related typedef in sources to maintain C/apr
style of interfaces
is it possible to use more specific header (e.g. related to jar
parsing) than environment.h for JarFilePackageMapping definition?

93
*the* bootstrap classpath

96-
the proper bracket style is specified here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12353745/format.sh
[well, the whole file is formatted strangely - Pavel, could you comment?]

97
such -> the

150
*a* temp pool

154-
putting map file operations into separate .cpp file with a clear and
readable interface function names in the corresponding .h interface
would not make existing code less readable

that .h file would be a proper place for new types you introduce, not
environment.h

you may also use the proper Apache formatting in the new file

190-
cannot understand where the signature file comes from - I cannot find
apr_file_write for it
the explanatory comment is welcome

if both mapping and signature files are things introduced by this
patch why don't we use one file instead of two

200
can this be replaced with assert(luni_path)?

213
+1 to Aleksey's comment on literals

[have to go, will continue later]

434
commented code

Thanks.


On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alexei,
>
> Sorry for confusing. The patch for review is H6039.patch_2. Please
> kindly provide your comment.
>
> Aleksey,
>
> I have not measured the performance before completing the code review.
> I will do that later.
>
> thx, Wenlong
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pavel,
> >
> > Pls see my comments in the JIRA.
> >
> > thx, Wenlong
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Pavel Pervov <pmcfirst@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Please, also, check that jar entry caches still work correctly after your patch.
> >>
> >> Pavel.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> I submit a new patch for on-demand class loading and parsing. All
> >>> codes are put in VM side, and the mapping info is automatically
> >>> produced.
> >>>
> >>> Pls see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6039
> >>>
> >>> Comments are welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Thx, Wenlong
> >>> Managed Runtime Technology Center, Intel
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> All,
> >>>> At this moment, I move all updates in classlib to VM side such that
> >>>> there is no modularity issue. Next step is to produce the mapping
> >>>> between module and library efficiently and accurately.
> >>>>
> >>>> Comments are welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thx, Wenlong
> >>>> Managed Runtime Technology Center, Intel
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>>> Thx :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Alexei Fedotov
> >>>>> <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Sure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. If you dig into SetClasspathFromString, you will see that
it starts from
> >>>>>> splitting the given classpath into pieces. You already know
the new piece
> >>>>>> you add and may skip splitting step.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. If I understand you code correctly, the case "pdest >
> >>>>>> (*it).second->bytes" might be a subject of a negative assertion.
Adding this
> >>>>>> assrtion would speed up bug discovery.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, Xiao-Feng's understanding is correct. The patch loads
and parses
> >>>>>>> modules on demand. If no class in swing.jar is not requested,
then
> >>>>>>> this module will not be loaded.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> btw, Alexei, you said "SetClasspathFromString" and "pdest
>
> >>>>>>> (*it).second->bytes" are not efficient. Can you share
more comments on
> >>>>>>> them? I just reused some code in Harmony, and didn't optimize
them
> >>>>>>> further.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thx, Wenlong
> >>>>>>> Managed Runtime Technology Center, Intel
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> > On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Alexei Fedotov
> >>>>>>> > <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >> Xiao Feng,
> >>>>>>> >> Thank you for explaining.
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >> I get more minor comments on more commented code,
ineffective
> >>>>>>> >> SetClasspathFromString usage, non-covered unexpected
case when pdest >
> >>>>>>> >> (*it).second->bytes. One major comment on crossing
vm module boundary
> >>>>>>> >> still remains. But now I'm happy with the design.
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > Alexei, yes, I agree with your comments. These parts
should be
> >>>>>>> > improved. (Still, this is my personal opinion. :) 
Let's wait Wenlong
> >>>>>>> > speaking.)
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > Thanks,
> >>>>>>> > xiaofeng
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >> Sorry for being slow.
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Xiao-Feng Li
<xiaofeng.li@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Alexei Fedotov
> >>>>>>> >>> <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>> Xiao-Feng,
> >>>>>>> >>>> Continuing with the server example could
you please give me a hint
> >>>>>>> where
> >>>>>>> >>>> decision to load swing.jar or not is taken
in the patch? My initial
> >>>>>>> >>>> perception was that the list of what to
load was hardcoded and was not
> >>>>>>> >>>> constructed dynamically depending on application.
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> Alexei, here is the patch code I found:
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> line 245:
> >>>>>>> >>> +            // Find which jar exports this
package
> >>>>>>> >>> +            if (pkgName != NULL) {
> >>>>>>> >>> +                char *boot_class_path =
> >>>>>>> >>> env->JavaProperties()->get(VM_BOOT_CLASS_DIR);
> >>>>>>> >>> +                char *pendingClassPath = NULL;
> >>>>>>> >>> +                apr_pool_t *tmp_pool;
> >>>>>>> >>> +                apr_pool_create(&tmp_pool,
NULL);
> >>>>>>> >>> +                while (it != env->pending_jar_set.end())
{
> >>>>>>> >>> +                    pdest = strstr( (*it).second->bytes,
pkgName );
> >>>>>>> >>> +                    if (pdest != NULL) {
> >>>>>>> >>> +                        pendingClassPath =
> >>>>>>> >>> (char*)STD_MALLOC(strlen(boot_class_path)
> >>>>>>> >>> +                                         
     +
> >>>>>>> strlen((*it).first->bytes) + 1);
> >>>>>>> >>> +                        strcpy(pendingClassPath,
boot_class_path);
> >>>>>>> >>> +                        strcat(pendingClassPath,
(*it).first->bytes);
> >>>>>>> >>> +                        // Open this found
jar, and read all classes
> >>>>>>> >>> contained in this jar
> >>>>>>> >>> +                        SetClasspathFromString(pendingClassPath,
> >>>>>>> tmp_pool);
> >>>>>>> >>> +                        // Erase the found
jar from pending jar list
> >>>>>>> >>> as it has been parsed
> >>>>>>> >>> +                        env->pending_jar_set.erase(it++);
> >>>>>>> >>> +                        STD_FREE(pendingClassPath);
> >>>>>>> >>> +                    } else {
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> It checks if a JAR has the requested package,
then loads it if yes. I
> >>>>>>> >>> am not sure if this is what you were asking.
(Btw, this is only my
> >>>>>>> >>> understanding of his patch. I am not speaking
for Wenlong.)
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> >>> xiaofeng
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Xiao-Feng
Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Alexei
Fedotov
> >>>>>>> >>>>> <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > Aleksey,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > I like your conclusion.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > Wenlong,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > I'm trying to understand the real
life value of the "abstract"
> >>>>>>> startup
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > time metric you've suggested.
Does Harmony with your patch load
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > swing.jar for a server application?
Do I understand that loading
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > happens, though it happens later
compared to VM without your patch?
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > believe that the proper design
of delayed loading should answer
> >>>>>>> "no"
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > to this question.
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> I checked the patch, and I found the
answer is indeed "No" as you
> >>>>>>> expected.
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> xiaofeng
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > In other words, I appreciate if
you describe which real use cases
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > improved by this patch.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > Thanks!
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 7:29 PM,
Aleksey Shipilev
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> Ok, here's the catch.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> bootclasspath.properties is
the SortedSet<JARfile>, which
> >>>>>>> enumerates
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> the JARs available for bootclassloader.
The set of such the JARs
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> really stable because modular
decomposition of classlib is stable.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> That's why nobody bothers
with automatic generation of it: it only
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> should be updated when new
JAR file arrives.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> Modulelibrarymapping.properties
is different on this point, it's
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> Map<PackageName,JARfile>,
which should be updated each time the
> >>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> *package* is introduced. I'm
not talking about java.* packages
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> (they're standardized), rather
about org.apache.harmony.*.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> Automatic generation of this
property file gives two advantages:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>  1. Error-prone. Prevent yourself
from hand-messing with mapping
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> getting spurious ClassNotFoundException.
BTW, what's the behaviour
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> case the mapping is wrong?
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>  2. "Researchful". There're
lot of guys around who enjoys the
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> modularity of Harmony classlib
and eventually they might want to
> >>>>>>> split
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> the packages even deeper,
into smaller pieces. Then automatic
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> generation would enable them
to quickly roll-in and experiment
> >>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> different package layouts
and their impact on performance. They
> >>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> use ordinary bootclasspath.properties,
but your feature wouldn't
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> used by them then ;)
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> That's merely a housekeeping
procedure. I believe that anything
> >>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> could be done more than once,
eventually would be done more than
> >>>>>>> once.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> Hence it should be automated.
You say that the file was generated
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> manifests of JARs, so is it
hard to just tie the same tool into
> >>>>>>> DRLVM
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> build process?
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> As for DRLVM-specific, my
opinion that this is because the patch:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>  a. breaks the compatibility
of classlib (you change
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> bootclasspath.properties,
right?) with other VMs.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>  b. treated in DRLVM classloader
only.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> Of course eventually this
feature might be used by others, but IMO
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> should be careful about other
guys who use the same classlib. I'd
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> rather wait for some incubation
on DRLVM side first.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> Aleksey.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 6:18
PM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> I see. In fact, my file
doesn't need track change at the class
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> granularity. Instead,
it only needs know package info provided in
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> manifest file.  When class
is added to a library, do we need
> >>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> the manifest as well?
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> btw, I guess there is
a mis-understanding: my
> >>>>>>> modulelibrarymapping
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> file only records package
info provided by manfiest in each
> >>>>>>> module. It
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> doesn't relate to each
class.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> thx,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> Wenlong
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at
10:55 PM, Pavel Pervov <
> >>>>>>> pmcfirst@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> Classes are added
to class library from time to time. I'm not
> >>>>>>> sure how
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> it can be possible
to track these changes manually.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> WBR,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>    Pavel.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008
at 5:09 PM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, one more
question: bootclasspath.properties is classlib
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> specific file,
why we could not make a vm specific file
> >>>>>>> manually?
> >>>>>>> >>>>> Just
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> curious to know
the possible reason. :)
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> thx,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wenlong
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 25,
2008 at 10:00 PM, Pavel Pervov <
> >>>>>>> pmcfirst@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If this would
be VM-side automatically produced configuration
> >>>>>>> >>>>> file...
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> WBR,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>    Pavel.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec
25, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Wenlong Li <
> >>>>>>> wenlong@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> btw, because
adding new module is rare case, manually
> >>>>>>> modifying the
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> bootclasspath.properties
is not an issue?
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> If so,
can I conclude adding another property file with same
> >>>>>>> update
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> frequency
as bootclasspath would be fine as well?
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Pls kindly
correct me if my understanding is wrong.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu,
Dec 25, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Pavel Pervov <
> >>>>>>> pmcfirst@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Wenlong,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Note,
that bootclasspath.properties is only changed on
> >>>>>>> adding new
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> module.
This is pretty rare occasion, I believe.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> WBR,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>  
 Pavel.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> On
Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Wenlong Li <
> >>>>>>> wenlong@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
Thx for your advice. Alexey.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
Here I have one question: do you know how the
> >>>>>>> >>>>> bootclasspath.properties
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
is maintained, manually or automatically?
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
Another comment is I would like to treat the patch as DRLVM
> >>>>>>> >>>>> specific
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
optimization, e.g., it targets for improving VM creation
> >>>>>>> time. So
> >>>>>>> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
is possible to move all updates to DRLVM part to eliminate
> >>>>>>> >>>>> potential
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
modularity and compatibility problem.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
thx,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
Wenlong
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Aleksey Shipilev
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
<aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
Hi, Wenlong.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Wenlong Li <
> >>>>>>> wenlong@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
btw, Alexey, Let's go back to discuss whether there is a
> >>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
include this feature in Harmony, given 17% performance
> >>>>>>> gain in
> >>>>>>> >>>>> Linux
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
when using your methodology. For windows test, I will
> >>>>>>> double
> >>>>>>> >>>>> check the
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
backgroud process as you pointed out.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
My opinion was already expressed after I had finished the
> >>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>> >>>>> from
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
my side: the boost can be achieved in specific conditions,
> >>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>> >>>>> whether
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
it's worth including into Harmony really depends on how
> >>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>> >>>>> mess the
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
patch would introduce besides the "performance boost".
> >>>>>>> From what
> >>>>>>> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
see, the patch obliges the maintainer to maintain the
> >>>>>>> correct
> >>>>>>> >>>>> mapping
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
between jars and Java packages. This new feature is also
> >>>>>>> spread
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
between Classlib and VM, but it seems like DRLVM specific.
> >>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>> >>>>> this
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
case I would rather stay without the patch.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
Personally (if I'll be committer) I would accept the patch
> >>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>> >>>>> two
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
serious modifications:
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
 1. Stay within DRLVM, do not introduce this feature into
> >>>>>>> >>>>> Classlib,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
get the thing tested and evolved on DRLVM side. Otherwise
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> >>>>> might
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
break the compatibility with other VMs.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
 2. Make the mapping generated automatically (during build
> >>>>>>> >>>>> process?)
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
to free the burden for maintainers.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
Thanks,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
Aleksey.
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > --
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > С уважением,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > Алексей Федотов,
> >>>>>>> >>>>> > ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
> >>>>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> --
> >>>>>>> >>>>> http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>> --
> >>>>>>> >>>> С уважением,
> >>>>>>> >>>> Алексей Федотов,
> >>>>>>> >>>> ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> --
> >>>>>>> >>> http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >> --
> >>>>>>> >> С уважением,
> >>>>>>> >> Алексей Федотов,
> >>>>>>> >> ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > --
> >>>>>>> > http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> С уважением,
> >>>>>> Алексей Федотов,
> >>>>>> ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >



--
С уважением,
Алексей Федотов,
ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
Mime
View raw message