You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by "Zakharov, Vasily M" <va...@intel.com> on 2006/08/02 17:48:00 UTC
RE: [classlib] resolution of rmi/math/crypto duplication?
Daniel,
Thank you very much for your work!
Here are my "fixit"s to the doc:
# Intel RMI
This package complies with J2SE 1.4.2 specification. Interoperability
with RI has been taken into care (through an intensive and exhaustive
wire protocol analysis); package has proved to be interoperable with RI.
Most deprecated functionality is supported, as well as 5.0 features (as
far as it was possible using 1.4.2 language). Activation Daemon and RMI
Compiler are also present.
# Intel test suite
The tests include a basic set of functional JUnit test cases to prove
the core functionality of the package. The tests verify
marshalling/unmarshalling of various types, registry operations, HTTP
and CGI connectivity, basic functionality of the activation system.
Vasily Zakharov
Intel Middleware Products Division
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:danielgandara@neosur.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:11 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib] resolution of rmi/math/crypto duplication?
Hi,
Attached you will find the rmi package comparison document
we created at the ITC; in it you will find a brief summary of each
contributed RMI, the result of the test cases run against both, and
our conclusion and advice.
Vasily, I would like you to complete the summary for Intel's RMI, so
the info on the doc is accurate.
Thanks,
Daniel
PS: I zipped the DOC because couldnt send the DOC as is
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Daniel Gandara" <da...@neosur.com>
>> To: <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 10:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [classlib] resolution of rmi/math/crypto duplication?
>>
>>
>>>On 7/21/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Fridlender wrote:
>>>> > On 7/21/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>> >> > While it's not a critical thing, this seems like something we
want
>>>> >> > to
>>>> >> > put to bed. Tim tried taking a run at this for one of these
last
>>>> >> > week,
>>>> >> > and I'd like to try again.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Would some number of days of discussion (like 3) plus a vote
be an
>>>> >> > acceptable way to get this resolved?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Yes. IMHO there is better value in performing a quick
comparison
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> choosing one to work on and improve, compared to spending a long
>>>> >> time
>>>> >> evaluating the two/three impls.
>>>> >
>>>> > In the case of java.math I think we should pick the new
>>>> > implementation
>>>> > (H-935 which combines H-380 and H-199 and some of H-551) to
improve
>>>> > from now on.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't surprise me that you'd say that :)
>>>>
>>>> What is your opinion for RMI?
>>
>> In the case of RMI we have been working comparing both
implementations
>> (I'm currently working on the final review and conclusion of the
>> document)
>> and my suggestion based on to what we've seen so far is that we
should
>> chose the Intel contributed rmi and work to improve it; needless to
say,
>> we are willing to help improving the rmi package if needed.
>>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> PS: I'll post the DOC as soon as I have it finished.
>>
>>>
>>>I am the wrong Daniel to answer that. I don't know enough about rmi
>>>to compare the two implementations.
>>>
>>>Daniel
>>
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [classlib] resolution of rmi/math/crypto duplication?
Posted by Daniel Gandara <da...@neosur.com>.
Vasily,
Thanks for your feedback, I'm sending the updated doc.
I believe we should open a new thread to discuss how we can help improve the
rmi package; I'll wait for your comments on that.
Thanks
Daniel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zakharov, Vasily M" <va...@intel.com>
To: <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: [classlib] resolution of rmi/math/crypto duplication?
Daniel,
Thank you very much for your work!
Here are my "fixit"s to the doc:
# Intel RMI
This package complies with J2SE 1.4.2 specification. Interoperability
with RI has been taken into care (through an intensive and exhaustive
wire protocol analysis); package has proved to be interoperable with RI.
Most deprecated functionality is supported, as well as 5.0 features (as
far as it was possible using 1.4.2 language). Activation Daemon and RMI
Compiler are also present.
# Intel test suite
The tests include a basic set of functional JUnit test cases to prove
the core functionality of the package. The tests verify
marshalling/unmarshalling of various types, registry operations, HTTP
and CGI connectivity, basic functionality of the activation system.
Vasily Zakharov
Intel Middleware Products Division
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Gandara [mailto:danielgandara@neosur.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:11 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib] resolution of rmi/math/crypto duplication?
Hi,
Attached you will find the rmi package comparison document
we created at the ITC; in it you will find a brief summary of each
contributed RMI, the result of the test cases run against both, and
our conclusion and advice.
Vasily, I would like you to complete the summary for Intel's RMI, so
the info on the doc is accurate.
Thanks,
Daniel
PS: I zipped the DOC because couldnt send the DOC as is
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Daniel Gandara" <da...@neosur.com>
>> To: <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 10:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [classlib] resolution of rmi/math/crypto duplication?
>>
>>
>>>On 7/21/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Fridlender wrote:
>>>> > On 7/21/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>> >> > While it's not a critical thing, this seems like something we
want
>>>> >> > to
>>>> >> > put to bed. Tim tried taking a run at this for one of these
last
>>>> >> > week,
>>>> >> > and I'd like to try again.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Would some number of days of discussion (like 3) plus a vote
be an
>>>> >> > acceptable way to get this resolved?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Yes. IMHO there is better value in performing a quick
comparison
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> choosing one to work on and improve, compared to spending a long
>>>> >> time
>>>> >> evaluating the two/three impls.
>>>> >
>>>> > In the case of java.math I think we should pick the new
>>>> > implementation
>>>> > (H-935 which combines H-380 and H-199 and some of H-551) to
improve
>>>> > from now on.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't surprise me that you'd say that :)
>>>>
>>>> What is your opinion for RMI?
>>
>> In the case of RMI we have been working comparing both
implementations
>> (I'm currently working on the final review and conclusion of the
>> document)
>> and my suggestion based on to what we've seen so far is that we
should
>> chose the Intel contributed rmi and work to improve it; needless to
say,
>> we are willing to help improving the rmi package if needed.
>>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> PS: I'll post the DOC as soon as I have it finished.
>>
>>>
>>>I am the wrong Daniel to answer that. I don't know enough about rmi
>>>to compare the two implementations.
>>>
>>>Daniel
>>
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org