You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to kato-spec@incubator.apache.org by Steve Poole <sp...@googlemail.com> on 2009/07/02 07:52:23 UTC
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
Re: JSR Early Draft Review - agreeing form and contents
Posted by Steve Poole <sp...@googlemail.com>.
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
>
RE: JSR Early Draft Review - agreeing form and contents
Posted by "Bobrovsky, Konstantin S" <ko...@intel.com>.
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