incubator-kato-spec mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Poole <spoole...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: JSR Early Draft Review - agreeing form and contents
Date Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:45:22 GMT
Excellent!  Thanks Konst.


On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Bobrovsky, Konstantin S <
konstantin.s.bobrovsky@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Steve, all
>
> Sorry for keeping silence - I was on short vacations.
>
> Hope my answers are still relevant. They are all 'yes' to items 1-6 below.
>
> > *Volunteers needed*
> I'm already doing the proof reading of the javadoc, and also I could help
> with populating javadoc.
>
> Thanks,
> Konst
>
> Intel Novosibirsk
> Closed Joint Stock Company Intel A/O
> Registered legal address: Krylatsky Hills Business Park,
> 17 Krylatskaya Str., Bldg 4, Moscow 121614,
> Russian Federation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Poole [mailto:spoole167@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 2:52 PM
> To: kato-spec@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: JSR Early Draft Review - agreeing form and contents
>
> For the upcoming EDR  I'm proposing that the form will be  a  introduction
> document and the javadoc for the API.
>
> We now need to agree a few things to do with what we consider to be in the
> API so far.
>
>  I'm quite happy for the introduction document to explain what is yet to
> come  or could change : so I just want to determine what we do agree on.
>
>
> *Questions*
>
> 1 - Do we agree that the API portion that provides an abstraction of  the
> Java Runtime (org.apache.kato.java) is relevent and  should be be included
> in the EDR?
>
> 2 - Do we agree that the API portion that provides an abstraction of  a
> process  (org.apache.kato.image) is relevent and  should be be included in
> the EDR?
>
> 3 - Do we agree that the API portion that provides a central registry of
> implementations (org.apache.kato) is is relevent and  should be be included
> in the EDR?
>
> 4 - There is a potential relationship between the Java Runtime and the
> underlying process.  This relationship is currently built into the API (ie
> many of the Java runtime classes can return an ImagePointer)
> Do we want to remove this overt relationship for the EDR?
>
> 5 - The packages need to be renamed to suit the JSR proposal.  The API
> prefix will be  javax.tools.diagnostics     Do we agree that that we will
> simply rename org.apache.kato and subpackages to match?
>
> 6 - We have not closed on the error handling model discussions.    Do we
> agree to go with what we have currently defined for the EDR (ie that
> checked
> exceptions can be thrown when data is missing or corrupted) and just
> mention
> that it may change?
>
>
> *Volunteers needed*
>
> We've created some simple wiki pages to record comments. These pages start
> here http://incubator.apache.org/kato/site/javadoc-comments.html
>
> We need help from you all, to proof read what exists today and what we
> write
> for the EDR.  We also need volunteers to help write  the introduction
> document and the javadoc for the API.
>
>
> Finally ,   I keep talking about javadoc  and by this I mean the  comments
> in the source code - currently exposed as html pages using the javadoc
> tool.
>   I am going to see if we can use the doxygen tool to create an alternative
> view of the doc.  I'd like to be able to provide a single downloadable pdf
> of the  intro and API specification for the EDR.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Steve
>

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