You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> on 2006/10/27 11:04:27 UTC
[classlib][concurrent] ASF block comments?
Why do two files in standard concurrent code have the standard ASF
comment blocks?
modules/concurrent/standard/src/main/java/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
modules/concurrent/standard/src/test/java/AtomicReferenceFieldUpdaterTest.java
It's not clear that there are any local modifications to these files.
Unless somebody states otherwise I'll remove them.
Regards
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
Re: [classlib][concurrent] ASF block comments?
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
On 10/28/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > I made mods to them, so that they would compile. We've discussed this
> > in the past; there was some invalid generics syntax that was valid at
> > the point of the JSR166 PFD. For maintenance purposes, it was easier
> > to take the single tag of code from the concurrency CVS than try to do
> > a mish/mash approach. As such, there were a few compile errors.
> >
> > The problem in ConcurrentHashMap was in the putAll method;
> > Iterator<Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V> was change to Iterator<?
> > extends Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V>.
>
> Sorry Nathan, I had missed/forgotten that. Such a simple change does
> not strike me as separately licenseable/copyrightable.
>
> Did you specifically want to see the ASF comment block in that file or
> would you be ok with a note in the implementation to show that it has
> been modified from the original?
The changes are so trivial (no algorithmic changes), I don't think it
really matters. Just wanted to answer the post, so we knew what was
going on. I original put those headers in those files when I started
working with the code months ago based on suggestion on the mailing
list at the time, but I don't think the true triviality of the changes
were well understood.
>
> > I'll have to look into what I changed in the test file, if that's needed.
>
> ack.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> > On 10/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> Please do. All,as Tim said, we don't do mods to j.u.c....
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >>
> >> Tim Ellison wrote:
> >> > Why do two files in standard concurrent code have the standard ASF
> >> > comment blocks?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> modules/concurrent/standard/src/main/java/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
> >>
> >> >
> >> modules/concurrent/standard/src/test/java/AtomicReferenceFieldUpdaterTest.java
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It's not clear that there are any local modifications to these files.
> >> > Unless somebody states otherwise I'll remove them.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Tim
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
> --
>
> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>
>
Re: [classlib][concurrent] ASF block comments?
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
On 10/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Tim Ellison wrote:
> > Nathan Beyer wrote:
> >> I made mods to them, so that they would compile. We've discussed this
> >> in the past; there was some invalid generics syntax that was valid at
> >> the point of the JSR166 PFD. For maintenance purposes, it was easier
> >> to take the single tag of code from the concurrency CVS than try to do
> >> a mish/mash approach. As such, there were a few compile errors.
> >>
> >> The problem in ConcurrentHashMap was in the putAll method;
> >> Iterator<Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V> was change to Iterator<?
> >> extends Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V>.
> >
> > Sorry Nathan, I had missed/forgotten that. Such a simple change does
> > not strike me as separately licenseable/copyrightable.
> >
>
> I agree.
>
> > Did you specifically want to see the ASF comment block in that file or
> > would you be ok with a note in the implementation to show that it has
> > been modified from the original?
>
> I thought there was a tag in doug's CVS for the version that was put
> into java 1.5 from sun?
The last tag available is JSR166_PFD [1]. If this is what Sun used for
1.5, then they changed it internally. There are no tags, which are
more recent. Of note, the JAPI reports shows other difference between
Harmony's j.u.c and Sun's JDK 5, so the public API was changed
somewhere. We could just use HEAD if we don't mind starting Java 6
support.
Here reference to a previous post about this topic -
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200608.mbox/%3c004701c6c493$62e72570$eb42fb0a@LITTLEGUY%3e
[1] http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/main/java/util/concurrent/?only_with_tag=JSR166_PFD
>
> geir
>
> >
> >> I'll have to look into what I changed in the test file, if that's needed.
> >
> > ack.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> >> On 10/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>> Please do. All,as Tim said, we don't do mods to j.u.c....
> >>>
> >>> geir
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Tim Ellison wrote:
> >>>> Why do two files in standard concurrent code have the standard ASF
> >>>> comment blocks?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> modules/concurrent/standard/src/main/java/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
> >>>
> >>> modules/concurrent/standard/src/test/java/AtomicReferenceFieldUpdaterTest.java
> >>>
> >>>> It's not clear that there are any local modifications to these files.
> >>>> Unless somebody states otherwise I'll remove them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Tim
> >>>>
> >
>
Re: [classlib][concurrent] ASF block comments?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Nathan Beyer wrote:
>> I made mods to them, so that they would compile. We've discussed this
>> in the past; there was some invalid generics syntax that was valid at
>> the point of the JSR166 PFD. For maintenance purposes, it was easier
>> to take the single tag of code from the concurrency CVS than try to do
>> a mish/mash approach. As such, there were a few compile errors.
>>
>> The problem in ConcurrentHashMap was in the putAll method;
>> Iterator<Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V> was change to Iterator<?
>> extends Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V>.
>
> Sorry Nathan, I had missed/forgotten that. Such a simple change does
> not strike me as separately licenseable/copyrightable.
>
I agree.
> Did you specifically want to see the ASF comment block in that file or
> would you be ok with a note in the implementation to show that it has
> been modified from the original?
I thought there was a tag in doug's CVS for the version that was put
into java 1.5 from sun?
geir
>
>> I'll have to look into what I changed in the test file, if that's needed.
>
> ack.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>> On 10/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Please do. All,as Tim said, we don't do mods to j.u.c....
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>>> Why do two files in standard concurrent code have the standard ASF
>>>> comment blocks?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> modules/concurrent/standard/src/main/java/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
>>>
>>> modules/concurrent/standard/src/test/java/AtomicReferenceFieldUpdaterTest.java
>>>
>>>> It's not clear that there are any local modifications to these files.
>>>> Unless somebody states otherwise I'll remove them.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>
Re: [classlib][concurrent] ASF block comments?
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Nathan Beyer wrote:
> I made mods to them, so that they would compile. We've discussed this
> in the past; there was some invalid generics syntax that was valid at
> the point of the JSR166 PFD. For maintenance purposes, it was easier
> to take the single tag of code from the concurrency CVS than try to do
> a mish/mash approach. As such, there were a few compile errors.
>
> The problem in ConcurrentHashMap was in the putAll method;
> Iterator<Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V> was change to Iterator<?
> extends Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V>.
Sorry Nathan, I had missed/forgotten that. Such a simple change does
not strike me as separately licenseable/copyrightable.
Did you specifically want to see the ASF comment block in that file or
would you be ok with a note in the implementation to show that it has
been modified from the original?
> I'll have to look into what I changed in the test file, if that's needed.
ack.
Regards,
Tim
> On 10/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Please do. All,as Tim said, we don't do mods to j.u.c....
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> > Why do two files in standard concurrent code have the standard ASF
>> > comment blocks?
>> >
>> >
>> modules/concurrent/standard/src/main/java/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
>>
>> >
>> modules/concurrent/standard/src/test/java/AtomicReferenceFieldUpdaterTest.java
>>
>> >
>> > It's not clear that there are any local modifications to these files.
>> > Unless somebody states otherwise I'll remove them.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Tim
>> >
>>
>
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
Re: [classlib][concurrent] ASF block comments?
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
I made mods to them, so that they would compile. We've discussed this
in the past; there was some invalid generics syntax that was valid at
the point of the JSR166 PFD. For maintenance purposes, it was easier
to take the single tag of code from the concurrency CVS than try to do
a mish/mash approach. As such, there were a few compile errors.
The problem in ConcurrentHashMap was in the putAll method;
Iterator<Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V> was change to Iterator<?
extends Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V>.
I'll have to look into what I changed in the test file, if that's needed.
-Nathan
On 10/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Please do. All,as Tim said, we don't do mods to j.u.c....
>
> geir
>
>
> Tim Ellison wrote:
> > Why do two files in standard concurrent code have the standard ASF
> > comment blocks?
> >
> > modules/concurrent/standard/src/main/java/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
> > modules/concurrent/standard/src/test/java/AtomicReferenceFieldUpdaterTest.java
> >
> > It's not clear that there are any local modifications to these files.
> > Unless somebody states otherwise I'll remove them.
> >
> > Regards
> > Tim
> >
>
Re: [classlib][concurrent] ASF block comments?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Please do. All,as Tim said, we don't do mods to j.u.c....
geir
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Why do two files in standard concurrent code have the standard ASF
> comment blocks?
>
> modules/concurrent/standard/src/main/java/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
> modules/concurrent/standard/src/test/java/AtomicReferenceFieldUpdaterTest.java
>
> It's not clear that there are any local modifications to these files.
> Unless somebody states otherwise I'll remove them.
>
> Regards
> Tim
>