From kato-spec-return-25-apmail-incubator-kato-spec-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Mon Jan 26 10:11:43 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-kato-spec-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 25539 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2009 10:11:43 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Jan 2009 10:11:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 62434 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jan 2009 10:11:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-kato-spec-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 62421 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jan 2009 10:11:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact kato-spec-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: kato-spec@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list kato-spec@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 62410 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jan 2009 10:11:42 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:11:42 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of pilkington.adam@googlemail.com designates 209.85.220.17 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.220.17] (HELO mail-fx0-f17.google.com) (209.85.220.17) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:11:33 +0000 Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10so1480105fxm.12 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:11:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=Wi6nFVX28zLd69wVakt1CAyc7rNQtck2iS/O2fvFRmA=; b=Tqiw6dwbRWqla7ZnwFgh5o8AXfh9Z/WCPZNr/bPf0yvo7LW4l9pAmiMHP/C4m24HaI /bcmP+VzyHgnjje/l6J20lkLs1UnyUgUc+WhJilbqtMr0UaAmIfrRCtpnrFnlsGXyBFW iD36tE0tGFSTQqWN+uZpqtGeKVoeWHQ6Jq9a4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=WzzwwMCFoBwHy4/H0uCZtSd5Jx2tz6L46Ym58dweSN4dKNfq/crwOCRASYdGYqCVjU +3n2rYqvtctplsYEA5uS0pi1yMMpuK3vX+fIVCMUYMVVS5R/xhczvMnhsFS3P+mM2hBT nZylI0xoZvsH+sFpDfVDcCt+jdFVisQcLSFvQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.250.7 with SMTP id x7mr157248bkh.175.1232964672613; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:11:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:11:12 +0000 Message-ID: <986b4acf0901260211m47f41adai48072c836030bef7@mail.gmail.com> Subject: API Tools Matrix From: Adam Pilkington To: kato-spec@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5990954edae04615ff52d X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001636c5990954edae04615ff52d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I've been thinking that it would be a good idea if we can construct a matrix showing which tools use which part of the API, for example a memory analyser tool would require access to the areas of the API which deal with the heap, whilst a tool for deadlock analysis would want to view thread/monitor data. I see the advantages of this as being 1) When implementing the API we can see how much support is needed in order to allow basic or full functionality for a given tool. 2) The matrix will allow us to plan sensible engagement points with other tools vendors (both commercial and open source) i.e. there is enough API functionality available for them to be interested. I would envisage this as a page on our website that can be updated over time. -- Regards Adam Pilkington --001636c5990954edae04615ff52d--