You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com> on 2006/02/24 18:13:01 UTC
Security module layout
Hi,
Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
.project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my private
workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this list,
I started to move things around a little to try and make things a little
more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
* it has platform-specific Java code
* it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the other
modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out several
missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file - including
one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the Harmony
repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants to
import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist in the
repository - although an implementation has been contributed [2]).
In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary tweaks to
the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
as before.
Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note renders
alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security structure that
I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for clarity) :
<SECURITY ROOT>
|
|
+---src
| |
| +---main
| | |
| | +---java
| | | |
| | | +---common
| | | |
| | | +---linux.IA32
| | | |
| | | \---win.IA32
| | |
| | +---native
| | | |
| | | +---linux.IA32
| | | |
| | | \---win.IA32
| | |
| | \---resources
| | |
| | \---common
| |
| +---test
| |
| +---java
| |
| +---common
| |
| +---linux.IA32
| |
| \---win.IA32
|
+---doc
| |
| \---images
|
+---make
| |
| \---native
| |
| +---linux
| |
| \---windows
|
+---META-INF
All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to Eclipse as
source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
"src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
"src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so on...).
I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
[1]
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
[2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
Re: Security module layout
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
catchup after long week...
George Harley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
> found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
> workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
> .project and .classpath files).
Easy to fix, although it's generally a convention in the OSS projects
I've worked in not to have that sort of IDE-specific junk in the
project, as we want people to be free to use whatever they want to use.
After adding these in (in my private
> workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
> its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this list,
> I started to move things around a little to try and make things a little
> more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
> interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
>
> * it has platform-specific Java code
> * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
Right, which is something I believe we want to do to the other modules,
move the native code inside each module.
[snip]
>
> In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary tweaks to
> the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
> as before.
That would be expected, yes :)
[snip]
>
>
> I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
> re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
I'm all for making things work inside eclipse as long as the Eclipse
tail doesn't wag the dog, and make us do things that favor eclipse over
people who do command-line oriented build/test, or other IDEs and editors.
I'll comment on the structure in your next message - (that's got to be
the only advantage for going silent for a few days, being able to look
down the thread...)
geir
>
>
> Best regards,
> George
> IBM UK
>
>
> [1]
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
>
> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
>
>
Re: Security module layout
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
Great!
2006/3/1, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > Hi George
> >
> > if you restructured the stuff on your computer, could you submit a patch?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> Yes, it has always been my hope to do so. Given the amount of change
> involved, I just wanted to run things by the broader community before
> proceeding to open a JIRA on the matter. Your feedback has been very
> helpful and I will work towards getting the patch submitted today.
>
> Best regards,
> George
> IBM UK
>
>
> > 2006/2/27, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> >>
> >>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi George
> >>>>
> >>>> actually the native code we have in security should work on both
> >>>> IA32 and IPF
> >>>>
> >>>> So, it seems that with your suggestion we will have to have
> >>>> two copies of that code. Please correct me if I'm wrong
> >>>>
> >>>> What is about the following str:
> >>>>
> >>>> +-win/
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +--IA32/
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +--IPF/
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +-- common1.cpp
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +-- common2.cpp
> >>>> | |
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Mikhail
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Looks good to me. And it's the same story under the "linux" folder ?
> >>>
> >> Exactly.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Mikhail
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> George
> >>> IBM UK
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi George,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable part ;-)
> >>>>>> Correct me if I am wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> ...er...well, I'm not sure that it was foremost in my thoughts when I
> >>>>> was working through the layout changes :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I simply wanted to have a way of differentiating between code written
> >>>>> for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on Intel architecture. I am assuming that
> >>>>> the Windows code there today is for 32 bit. I did wonder about splitting
> >>>>> those directory names up so that instead of a folder called "win.IA32"
> >>>>> we had a "win" folder with a "IA32" sub-folder (and likewise for Linux).
> >>>>> i.e.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> java
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> +-common
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> +-win
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | \---IA32
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> +-linux
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | \---IA32
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The above approach leaves the way open for other variants (e.g. 64-bit
> >>>>> code) to be added in new sub-folders beneath "win" and "linux". In the
> >>>>> end I opted for consistency with the "win.IA32" and "linux.IA32" names
> >>>>> that are currently being used under the trunk/native-src folder in SVN.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> George
> >>>>> IBM UK
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jean-Frederic
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Mikhail
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2006/2/24, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly
> >>>>>>>> for me
> >>>>>>>> when I read over the sent note (sigh).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>> +---src
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---main
> >>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | +---java
> >>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | | +---common
> >>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | +---native
> >>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | \---resources
> >>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | \---common
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---test
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---java
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---common
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>> +---doc
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | \---images
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>> +---make
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | \---native
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---linux
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | \---windows
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>> +---META-INF
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>> George
> >>>>>>>> IBM UK
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> George Harley wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
> >>>>>>>>> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
> >>>>>>>>> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
> >>>>>>>>> found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
> >>>>>>>>> workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
> >>>>>>>>> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
> >>>>>>>>> .project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my private
> >>>>>>>>> workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
> >>>>>>>>> its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
> >>>>>>>>> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this
> >>>>>>>>> list,
> >>>>>>>>> I started to move things around a little to try and make things a
> >>>>>>>>> little
> >>>>>>>>> more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
> >>>>>>>>> interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * it has platform-specific Java code
> >>>>>>>>> * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the other
> >>>>>>>>> modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out several
> >>>>>>>>> missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file - including
> >>>>>>>>> one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the Harmony
> >>>>>>>>> repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants to
> >>>>>>>>> import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist in the
> >>>>>>>>> repository - although an implementation has been contributed [2]).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary
> >>>>>>>>> tweaks to
> >>>>>>>>> the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
> >>>>>>>>> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
> >>>>>>>>> as before.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note renders
> >>>>>>>>> alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security structure
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for clarity) :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
> >>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>> +---src
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | +---main
> >>>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | +---java
> >>>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | | +---common
> >>>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> | | | | | +---native
> >>>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | \---resources
> >>>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | \---common
> >>>>>>>>> | | | +---test
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | +---java
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | +---common
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>> +---doc
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | \---images
> >>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>> +---make
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | \---native
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | +---linux
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | \---windows
> >>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>> +---META-INF
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to Eclipse as
> >>>>>>>>> source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
> >>>>>>>>> "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
> >>>>>>>>> "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so on...).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
> >>>>>>>>> re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
> >>>>>>>>> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>> George
> >>>>>>>>> IBM UK
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Security module layout
Posted by George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Stepan,
Thanks for raising this. I agree with you that accomplishing the
separate goals of HARMONY-95 and HARMONY-147 would probably be easier if
security was first moved to the new layout (assuming it gets the
blessing of the committers) before auth gets separated out.
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> George, we are going to extract auth module (see HARMONY-95) and all
> platform-specific java code will go into the new module.
>
> To avoid patches conflict will we define a sequence in which we will apply
> them? IMHO, it makes sense to adjust to proposed layout first and then to
> perform auth module extraction. What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan Mishura
> Intel Middleware Products Division
>
>
> On 3/1/06, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>
>>> Hi George
>>>
>>> if you restructured the stuff on your computer, could you submit a
>>>
>> patch?
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mikhail
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Mikhail,
>>
>> Yes, it has always been my hope to do so. Given the amount of change
>> involved, I just wanted to run things by the broader community before
>> proceeding to open a JIRA on the matter. Your feedback has been very
>> helpful and I will work towards getting the patch submitted today.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> George
>> IBM UK
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2006/2/27, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi George
>>>>>>
>>>>>> actually the native code we have in security should work on both
>>>>>> IA32 and IPF
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, it seems that with your suggestion we will have to have
>>>>>> two copies of that code. Please correct me if I'm wrong
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is about the following str:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +-win/
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | +--IA32/
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | +--IPF/
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | +-- common1.cpp
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | +-- common2.cpp
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Mikhail
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Looks good to me. And it's the same story under the "linux" folder ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mikhail
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> George
>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi George,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable part
>>>>>>>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>>>>>>> Correct me if I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...er...well, I'm not sure that it was foremost in my thoughts when
>>>>>>>
>> I
>>
>>>>>>> was working through the layout changes :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply wanted to have a way of differentiating between code
>>>>>>>
>> written
>>
>>>>>>> for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on Intel architecture. I am assuming
>>>>>>>
>> that
>>
>>>>>>> the Windows code there today is for 32 bit. I did wonder about
>>>>>>>
>> splitting
>>
>>>>>>> those directory names up so that instead of a folder called "
>>>>>>>
>> win.IA32"
>>
>>>>>>> we had a "win" folder with a "IA32" sub-folder (and likewise for
>>>>>>>
>> Linux).
>>
>>>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> java
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> +-common
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> +-win
>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>> | \---IA32
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> +-linux
>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>> | \---IA32
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above approach leaves the way open for other variants (e.g.
>>>>>>>
>> 64-bit
>>
>>>>>>> code) to be added in new sub-folders beneath "win" and "linux". In
>>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>>> end I opted for consistency with the "win.IA32" and "linux.IA32"
>>>>>>>
>> names
>>
>>>>>>> that are currently being used under the trunk/native-src folder in
>>>>>>>
>> SVN.
>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jean-Frederic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Mikhail
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2006/2/24, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly
>>>>>>>>>> for me
>>>>>>>>>> when I read over the sent note (sigh).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>> +---src
>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>> | +---main
>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | +---java
>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | | +---common
>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | +---native
>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | \---resources
>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | \---common
>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>> | +---test
>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>> | +---java
>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>> | +---common
>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>> | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>> +---doc
>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>> | \---images
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>> +---make
>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>> | \---native
>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>> | +---linux
>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>> | \---windows
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>> +---META-INF
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> George Harley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> for
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> experimenting
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> modules/security and
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Eclipse
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> difference is
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>> .project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> private
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> workspace), I began to look at other differences between
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> security and
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
>>>>>>>>>>> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> this
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> list,
>>>>>>>>>>> I started to move things around a little to try and make things
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> a
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>>>> more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> made more
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting by virtue of the following security module
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> distinctions :
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * it has platform-specific Java code
>>>>>>>>>>> * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> other
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> several
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> including
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Harmony
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> in the
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> repository - although an implementation has been contributed
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> [2]).
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> tweaks to
>>>>>>>>>>> the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> level"
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> still work
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> as before.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> renders
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> structure
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> clarity) :
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>> +---src
>>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | +---main
>>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | | +---java
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | +---common
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | | | +---native
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | | \---resources
>>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | | \---common
>>>>>>>>>>> | | | +---test
>>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | +---java
>>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | +---common
>>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>> +---doc
>>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | \---images
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>> +---make
>>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | \---native
>>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | +---linux
>>>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>>>> | \---windows
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>> +---META-INF
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Eclipse as
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
>>>>>>>>>>> "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
>>>>>>>>>>> "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> on...).
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would be really keen to hear what people think of this
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> prototype
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> module
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Stepan Mishura
> Intel Middleware Products Division
>
>
Re: Security module layout
Posted by Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com>.
George, we are going to extract auth module (see HARMONY-95) and all
platform-specific java code will go into the new module.
To avoid patches conflict will we define a sequence in which we will apply
them? IMHO, it makes sense to adjust to proposed layout first and then to
perform auth module extraction. What do you think?
Thanks,
Stepan Mishura
Intel Middleware Products Division
On 3/1/06, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > Hi George
> >
> > if you restructured the stuff on your computer, could you submit a
> patch?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> Yes, it has always been my hope to do so. Given the amount of change
> involved, I just wanted to run things by the broader community before
> proceeding to open a JIRA on the matter. Your feedback has been very
> helpful and I will work towards getting the patch submitted today.
>
> Best regards,
> George
> IBM UK
>
>
> > 2006/2/27, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> >>
> >>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi George
> >>>>
> >>>> actually the native code we have in security should work on both
> >>>> IA32 and IPF
> >>>>
> >>>> So, it seems that with your suggestion we will have to have
> >>>> two copies of that code. Please correct me if I'm wrong
> >>>>
> >>>> What is about the following str:
> >>>>
> >>>> +-win/
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +--IA32/
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +--IPF/
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +-- common1.cpp
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +-- common2.cpp
> >>>> | |
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Mikhail
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Looks good to me. And it's the same story under the "linux" folder ?
> >>>
> >> Exactly.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Mikhail
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> George
> >>> IBM UK
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi George,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable part
> ;-)
> >>>>>> Correct me if I am wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> ...er...well, I'm not sure that it was foremost in my thoughts when
> I
> >>>>> was working through the layout changes :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I simply wanted to have a way of differentiating between code
> written
> >>>>> for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on Intel architecture. I am assuming
> that
> >>>>> the Windows code there today is for 32 bit. I did wonder about
> splitting
> >>>>> those directory names up so that instead of a folder called "
> win.IA32"
> >>>>> we had a "win" folder with a "IA32" sub-folder (and likewise for
> Linux).
> >>>>> i.e.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> java
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> +-common
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> +-win
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | \---IA32
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> +-linux
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | \---IA32
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The above approach leaves the way open for other variants (e.g.
> 64-bit
> >>>>> code) to be added in new sub-folders beneath "win" and "linux". In
> the
> >>>>> end I opted for consistency with the "win.IA32" and "linux.IA32"
> names
> >>>>> that are currently being used under the trunk/native-src folder in
> SVN.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> George
> >>>>> IBM UK
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jean-Frederic
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Mikhail
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2006/2/24, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly
> >>>>>>>> for me
> >>>>>>>> when I read over the sent note (sigh).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>> +---src
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---main
> >>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | +---java
> >>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | | +---common
> >>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | +---native
> >>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | \---resources
> >>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>> | | \---common
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---test
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---java
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---common
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>> +---doc
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | \---images
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>> +---make
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | \---native
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | +---linux
> >>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>> | \---windows
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>> +---META-INF
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>> George
> >>>>>>>> IBM UK
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> George Harley wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions
> for
> >>>>>>>>> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After
> experimenting
> >>>>>>>>> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out
> modules/security and
> >>>>>>>>> found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an
> Eclipse
> >>>>>>>>> workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious
> difference is
> >>>>>>>>> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
> >>>>>>>>> .project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my
> private
> >>>>>>>>> workspace), I began to look at other differences between
> security and
> >>>>>>>>> its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
> >>>>>>>>> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around
> this
> >>>>>>>>> list,
> >>>>>>>>> I started to move things around a little to try and make things
> a
> >>>>>>>>> little
> >>>>>>>>> more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were
> made more
> >>>>>>>>> interesting by virtue of the following security module
> distinctions :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * it has platform-specific Java code
> >>>>>>>>> * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the
> other
> >>>>>>>>> modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out
> several
> >>>>>>>>> missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file -
> including
> >>>>>>>>> one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the
> Harmony
> >>>>>>>>> repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants
> to
> >>>>>>>>> import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist
> in the
> >>>>>>>>> repository - although an implementation has been contributed
> [2]).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary
> >>>>>>>>> tweaks to
> >>>>>>>>> the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top
> level"
> >>>>>>>>> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds
> still work
> >>>>>>>>> as before.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note
> renders
> >>>>>>>>> alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security
> structure
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for
> clarity) :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
> >>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>> +---src
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | +---main
> >>>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | +---java
> >>>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | | +---common
> >>>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> | | | | | +---native
> >>>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | \---resources
> >>>>>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>>>>> | | \---common
> >>>>>>>>> | | | +---test
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | +---java
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | +---common
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>> +---doc
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | \---images
> >>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>> +---make
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | \---native
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | +---linux
> >>>>>>>>> | |
> >>>>>>>>> | \---windows
> >>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>> +---META-INF
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to
> Eclipse as
> >>>>>>>>> source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
> >>>>>>>>> "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
> >>>>>>>>> "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so
> on...).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I would be really keen to hear what people think of this
> prototype
> >>>>>>>>> re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security
> module
> >>>>>>>>> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>> George
> >>>>>>>>> IBM UK
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Thanks,
Stepan Mishura
Intel Middleware Products Division
Re: Security module layout
Posted by George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> Hi George
>
> if you restructured the stuff on your computer, could you submit a patch?
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
Hi Mikhail,
Yes, it has always been my hope to do so. Given the amount of change
involved, I just wanted to run things by the broader community before
proceeding to open a JIRA on the matter. Your feedback has been very
helpful and I will work towards getting the patch submitted today.
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
> 2006/2/27, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
>
>> 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>>
>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi George
>>>>
>>>> actually the native code we have in security should work on both
>>>> IA32 and IPF
>>>>
>>>> So, it seems that with your suggestion we will have to have
>>>> two copies of that code. Please correct me if I'm wrong
>>>>
>>>> What is about the following str:
>>>>
>>>> +-win/
>>>> | |
>>>> | +--IA32/
>>>> | |
>>>> | +--IPF/
>>>> | |
>>>> | +-- common1.cpp
>>>> | |
>>>> | +-- common2.cpp
>>>> | |
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mikhail
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Looks good to me. And it's the same story under the "linux" folder ?
>>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mikhail
>>
>>
>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> George
>>> IBM UK
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi George,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable part ;-)
>>>>>> Correct me if I am wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ...er...well, I'm not sure that it was foremost in my thoughts when I
>>>>> was working through the layout changes :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I simply wanted to have a way of differentiating between code written
>>>>> for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on Intel architecture. I am assuming that
>>>>> the Windows code there today is for 32 bit. I did wonder about splitting
>>>>> those directory names up so that instead of a folder called "win.IA32"
>>>>> we had a "win" folder with a "IA32" sub-folder (and likewise for Linux).
>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>
>>>>> java
>>>>> |
>>>>> +-common
>>>>> |
>>>>> +-win
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | \---IA32
>>>>> |
>>>>> +-linux
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | \---IA32
>>>>> |
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above approach leaves the way open for other variants (e.g. 64-bit
>>>>> code) to be added in new sub-folders beneath "win" and "linux". In the
>>>>> end I opted for consistency with the "win.IA32" and "linux.IA32" names
>>>>> that are currently being used under the trunk/native-src folder in SVN.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> George
>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jean-Frederic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Mikhail
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2006/2/24, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly
>>>>>>>> for me
>>>>>>>> when I read over the sent note (sigh).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> +---src
>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>> | +---main
>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>> | | +---java
>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>> | | | +---common
>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>> | | +---native
>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>> | | \---resources
>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>> | | \---common
>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>> | +---test
>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>> | +---java
>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>> | +---common
>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>> | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> +---doc
>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>> | \---images
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> +---make
>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>> | \---native
>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>> | +---linux
>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>> | \---windows
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> +---META-INF
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> George Harley wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
>>>>>>>>> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
>>>>>>>>> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
>>>>>>>>> found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
>>>>>>>>> workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
>>>>>>>>> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
>>>>>>>>> .project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my private
>>>>>>>>> workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
>>>>>>>>> its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
>>>>>>>>> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this
>>>>>>>>> list,
>>>>>>>>> I started to move things around a little to try and make things a
>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>> more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
>>>>>>>>> interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * it has platform-specific Java code
>>>>>>>>> * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the other
>>>>>>>>> modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out several
>>>>>>>>> missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file - including
>>>>>>>>> one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the Harmony
>>>>>>>>> repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants to
>>>>>>>>> import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist in the
>>>>>>>>> repository - although an implementation has been contributed [2]).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary
>>>>>>>>> tweaks to
>>>>>>>>> the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
>>>>>>>>> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
>>>>>>>>> as before.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note renders
>>>>>>>>> alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security structure
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for clarity) :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>> +---src
>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>> | +---main
>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>> | | +---java
>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>> | | | +---common
>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>> | | | | | +---native
>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>> | | \---resources
>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>> | | \---common
>>>>>>>>> | | | +---test
>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>> | +---java
>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>> | +---common
>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>> | \---win.IA32
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>> +---doc
>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>> | \---images
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>> +---make
>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>> | \---native
>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>> | +---linux
>>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>>> | \---windows
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>> +---META-INF
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to Eclipse as
>>>>>>>>> source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
>>>>>>>>> "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
>>>>>>>>> "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so on...).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
>>>>>>>>> re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
>>>>>>>>> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Security module layout
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
Hi George
if you restructured the stuff on your computer, could you submit a patch?
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/2/27, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> > Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > Hi George
> > >
> > > actually the native code we have in security should work on both
> > > IA32 and IPF
> > >
> > > So, it seems that with your suggestion we will have to have
> > > two copies of that code. Please correct me if I'm wrong
> > >
> > > What is about the following str:
> > >
> > > +-win/
> > > | |
> > > | +--IA32/
> > > | |
> > > | +--IPF/
> > > | |
> > > | +-- common1.cpp
> > > | |
> > > | +-- common2.cpp
> > > | |
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mikhail
> > >
> >
> > Looks good to me. And it's the same story under the "linux" folder ?
>
> Exactly.
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > George
> > IBM UK
> >
> > > 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi George,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable part ;-)
> > >>> Correct me if I am wrong.
> > >>>
> > >> ...er...well, I'm not sure that it was foremost in my thoughts when I
> > >> was working through the layout changes :-)
> > >>
> > >> I simply wanted to have a way of differentiating between code written
> > >> for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on Intel architecture. I am assuming that
> > >> the Windows code there today is for 32 bit. I did wonder about splitting
> > >> those directory names up so that instead of a folder called "win.IA32"
> > >> we had a "win" folder with a "IA32" sub-folder (and likewise for Linux).
> > >> i.e.
> > >>
> > >> java
> > >> |
> > >> +-common
> > >> |
> > >> +-win
> > >> | |
> > >> | \---IA32
> > >> |
> > >> +-linux
> > >> | |
> > >> | \---IA32
> > >> |
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The above approach leaves the way open for other variants (e.g. 64-bit
> > >> code) to be added in new sub-folders beneath "win" and "linux". In the
> > >> end I opted for consistency with the "win.IA32" and "linux.IA32" names
> > >> that are currently being used under the trunk/native-src folder in SVN.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> George
> > >> IBM UK
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Cheers
> > >>>
> > >>> Jean-Frederic
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Mikhail
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2006/2/24, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly
> > >>>>> for me
> > >>>>> when I read over the sent note (sigh).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
> > >>>>> |
> > >>>>> |
> > >>>>> +---src
> > >>>>> | |
> > >>>>> | +---main
> > >>>>> | | |
> > >>>>> | | +---java
> > >>>>> | | | |
> > >>>>> | | | +---common
> > >>>>> | | | |
> > >>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> > >>>>> | | | |
> > >>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> > >>>>> | | |
> > >>>>> | | +---native
> > >>>>> | | | |
> > >>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> > >>>>> | | | |
> > >>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> > >>>>> | | |
> > >>>>> | | \---resources
> > >>>>> | | |
> > >>>>> | | \---common
> > >>>>> | |
> > >>>>> | +---test
> > >>>>> | |
> > >>>>> | +---java
> > >>>>> | |
> > >>>>> | +---common
> > >>>>> | |
> > >>>>> | +---linux.IA32
> > >>>>> | |
> > >>>>> | \---win.IA32
> > >>>>> |
> > >>>>> +---doc
> > >>>>> | |
> > >>>>> | \---images
> > >>>>> |
> > >>>>> +---make
> > >>>>> | |
> > >>>>> | \---native
> > >>>>> | |
> > >>>>> | +---linux
> > >>>>> | |
> > >>>>> | \---windows
> > >>>>> |
> > >>>>> +---META-INF
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>> George
> > >>>>> IBM UK
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> George Harley wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
> > >>>>>> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
> > >>>>>> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
> > >>>>>> found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
> > >>>>>> workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
> > >>>>>> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
> > >>>>>> .project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my private
> > >>>>>> workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
> > >>>>>> its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
> > >>>>>> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this
> > >>>>>> list,
> > >>>>>> I started to move things around a little to try and make things a
> > >>>>>> little
> > >>>>>> more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
> > >>>>>> interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * it has platform-specific Java code
> > >>>>>> * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the other
> > >>>>>> modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out several
> > >>>>>> missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file - including
> > >>>>>> one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the Harmony
> > >>>>>> repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants to
> > >>>>>> import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist in the
> > >>>>>> repository - although an implementation has been contributed [2]).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary
> > >>>>>> tweaks to
> > >>>>>> the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
> > >>>>>> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
> > >>>>>> as before.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note renders
> > >>>>>> alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security structure
> > >>>>>> that
> > >>>>>> I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for clarity) :
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
> > >>>>>> |
> > >>>>>> |
> > >>>>>> +---src
> > >>>>>> | |
> > >>>>>> | +---main
> > >>>>>> | | |
> > >>>>>> | | +---java
> > >>>>>> | | | |
> > >>>>>> | | | +---common
> > >>>>>> | | | |
> > >>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> > >>>>>> | | | |
> > >>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> > >>>>>> | | | | | +---native
> > >>>>>> | | | |
> > >>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> > >>>>>> | | | |
> > >>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> > >>>>>> | | |
> > >>>>>> | | \---resources
> > >>>>>> | | |
> > >>>>>> | | \---common
> > >>>>>> | | | +---test
> > >>>>>> | |
> > >>>>>> | +---java
> > >>>>>> | |
> > >>>>>> | +---common
> > >>>>>> | |
> > >>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
> > >>>>>> | |
> > >>>>>> | \---win.IA32
> > >>>>>> |
> > >>>>>> +---doc
> > >>>>>> | |
> > >>>>>> | \---images
> > >>>>>> |
> > >>>>>> +---make
> > >>>>>> | |
> > >>>>>> | \---native
> > >>>>>> | |
> > >>>>>> | +---linux
> > >>>>>> | |
> > >>>>>> | \---windows
> > >>>>>> |
> > >>>>>> +---META-INF
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to Eclipse as
> > >>>>>> source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
> > >>>>>> "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
> > >>>>>> "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so on...).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
> > >>>>>> re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
> > >>>>>> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>>> George
> > >>>>>> IBM UK
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Security module layout
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > Hi George
> >
> > actually the native code we have in security should work on both
> > IA32 and IPF
> >
> > So, it seems that with your suggestion we will have to have
> > two copies of that code. Please correct me if I'm wrong
> >
> > What is about the following str:
> >
> > +-win/
> > | |
> > | +--IA32/
> > | |
> > | +--IPF/
> > | |
> > | +-- common1.cpp
> > | |
> > | +-- common2.cpp
> > | |
> > ...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
>
> Looks good to me. And it's the same story under the "linux" folder ?
Exactly.
Thanks,
Mikhail
>
> Best regards,
> George
> IBM UK
>
> > 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> >
> >> Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi George,
> >>>>
> >>>> why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable part ;-)
> >>> Correct me if I am wrong.
> >>>
> >> ...er...well, I'm not sure that it was foremost in my thoughts when I
> >> was working through the layout changes :-)
> >>
> >> I simply wanted to have a way of differentiating between code written
> >> for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on Intel architecture. I am assuming that
> >> the Windows code there today is for 32 bit. I did wonder about splitting
> >> those directory names up so that instead of a folder called "win.IA32"
> >> we had a "win" folder with a "IA32" sub-folder (and likewise for Linux).
> >> i.e.
> >>
> >> java
> >> |
> >> +-common
> >> |
> >> +-win
> >> | |
> >> | \---IA32
> >> |
> >> +-linux
> >> | |
> >> | \---IA32
> >> |
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> The above approach leaves the way open for other variants (e.g. 64-bit
> >> code) to be added in new sub-folders beneath "win" and "linux". In the
> >> end I opted for consistency with the "win.IA32" and "linux.IA32" names
> >> that are currently being used under the trunk/native-src folder in SVN.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> George
> >> IBM UK
> >>
> >>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>> Jean-Frederic
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Mikhail
> >>>>
> >>>> 2006/2/24, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly
> >>>>> for me
> >>>>> when I read over the sent note (sigh).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> +---src
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | +---main
> >>>>> | | |
> >>>>> | | +---java
> >>>>> | | | |
> >>>>> | | | +---common
> >>>>> | | | |
> >>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>> | | | |
> >>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>> | | |
> >>>>> | | +---native
> >>>>> | | | |
> >>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>> | | | |
> >>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>> | | |
> >>>>> | | \---resources
> >>>>> | | |
> >>>>> | | \---common
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | +---test
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | +---java
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | +---common
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | \---win.IA32
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> +---doc
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | \---images
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> +---make
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | \---native
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | +---linux
> >>>>> | |
> >>>>> | \---windows
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> +---META-INF
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> George
> >>>>> IBM UK
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> George Harley wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
> >>>>>> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
> >>>>>> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
> >>>>>> found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
> >>>>>> workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
> >>>>>> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
> >>>>>> .project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my private
> >>>>>> workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
> >>>>>> its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
> >>>>>> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this
> >>>>>> list,
> >>>>>> I started to move things around a little to try and make things a
> >>>>>> little
> >>>>>> more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
> >>>>>> interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * it has platform-specific Java code
> >>>>>> * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the other
> >>>>>> modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out several
> >>>>>> missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file - including
> >>>>>> one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the Harmony
> >>>>>> repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants to
> >>>>>> import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist in the
> >>>>>> repository - although an implementation has been contributed [2]).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary
> >>>>>> tweaks to
> >>>>>> the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
> >>>>>> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
> >>>>>> as before.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note renders
> >>>>>> alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security structure
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for clarity) :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
> >>>>>> |
> >>>>>> |
> >>>>>> +---src
> >>>>>> | |
> >>>>>> | +---main
> >>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>> | | +---java
> >>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>> | | | +---common
> >>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>> | | | | | +---native
> >>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>> | | | |
> >>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>> | | \---resources
> >>>>>> | | |
> >>>>>> | | \---common
> >>>>>> | | | +---test
> >>>>>> | |
> >>>>>> | +---java
> >>>>>> | |
> >>>>>> | +---common
> >>>>>> | |
> >>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
> >>>>>> | |
> >>>>>> | \---win.IA32
> >>>>>> |
> >>>>>> +---doc
> >>>>>> | |
> >>>>>> | \---images
> >>>>>> |
> >>>>>> +---make
> >>>>>> | |
> >>>>>> | \---native
> >>>>>> | |
> >>>>>> | +---linux
> >>>>>> | |
> >>>>>> | \---windows
> >>>>>> |
> >>>>>> +---META-INF
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to Eclipse as
> >>>>>> source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
> >>>>>> "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
> >>>>>> "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so on...).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
> >>>>>> re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
> >>>>>> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>> George
> >>>>>> IBM UK
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Security module layout
Posted by George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> Hi George
>
> actually the native code we have in security should work on both
> IA32 and IPF
>
> So, it seems that with your suggestion we will have to have
> two copies of that code. Please correct me if I'm wrong
>
> What is about the following str:
>
> +-win/
> | |
> | +--IA32/
> | |
> | +--IPF/
> | |
> | +-- common1.cpp
> | |
> | +-- common2.cpp
> | |
> ...
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
Looks good to me. And it's the same story under the "linux" folder ?
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
> 2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>
>> Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
>>
>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi George,
>>>>
>>>> why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable part ;-)
>>> Correct me if I am wrong.
>>>
>> ...er...well, I'm not sure that it was foremost in my thoughts when I
>> was working through the layout changes :-)
>>
>> I simply wanted to have a way of differentiating between code written
>> for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on Intel architecture. I am assuming that
>> the Windows code there today is for 32 bit. I did wonder about splitting
>> those directory names up so that instead of a folder called "win.IA32"
>> we had a "win" folder with a "IA32" sub-folder (and likewise for Linux).
>> i.e.
>>
>> java
>> |
>> +-common
>> |
>> +-win
>> | |
>> | \---IA32
>> |
>> +-linux
>> | |
>> | \---IA32
>> |
>> ...
>>
>>
>> The above approach leaves the way open for other variants (e.g. 64-bit
>> code) to be added in new sub-folders beneath "win" and "linux". In the
>> end I opted for consistency with the "win.IA32" and "linux.IA32" names
>> that are currently being used under the trunk/native-src folder in SVN.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> George
>> IBM UK
>>
>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Jean-Frederic
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mikhail
>>>>
>>>> 2006/2/24, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly
>>>>> for me
>>>>> when I read over the sent note (sigh).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
>>>>> |
>>>>> |
>>>>> +---src
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | +---main
>>>>> | | |
>>>>> | | +---java
>>>>> | | | |
>>>>> | | | +---common
>>>>> | | | |
>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>> | | | |
>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>> | | |
>>>>> | | +---native
>>>>> | | | |
>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>> | | | |
>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>> | | |
>>>>> | | \---resources
>>>>> | | |
>>>>> | | \---common
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | +---test
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | +---java
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | +---common
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | \---win.IA32
>>>>> |
>>>>> +---doc
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | \---images
>>>>> |
>>>>> +---make
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | \---native
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | +---linux
>>>>> | |
>>>>> | \---windows
>>>>> |
>>>>> +---META-INF
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> George
>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> George Harley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
>>>>>> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
>>>>>> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
>>>>>> found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
>>>>>> workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
>>>>>> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
>>>>>> .project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my private
>>>>>> workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
>>>>>> its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
>>>>>> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this
>>>>>> list,
>>>>>> I started to move things around a little to try and make things a
>>>>>> little
>>>>>> more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
>>>>>> interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * it has platform-specific Java code
>>>>>> * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the other
>>>>>> modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out several
>>>>>> missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file - including
>>>>>> one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the Harmony
>>>>>> repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants to
>>>>>> import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist in the
>>>>>> repository - although an implementation has been contributed [2]).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary
>>>>>> tweaks to
>>>>>> the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
>>>>>> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
>>>>>> as before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note renders
>>>>>> alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security structure
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for clarity) :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> +---src
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | +---main
>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>> | | +---java
>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>> | | | +---common
>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>>> | | | | | +---native
>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>> | | \---resources
>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>> | | \---common
>>>>>> | | | +---test
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | +---java
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | +---common
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | +---linux.IA32
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | \---win.IA32
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> +---doc
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | \---images
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> +---make
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | \---native
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | +---linux
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | \---windows
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> +---META-INF
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to Eclipse as
>>>>>> source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
>>>>>> "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
>>>>>> "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so on...).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
>>>>>> re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
>>>>>> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> George
>>>>>> IBM UK
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Security module layout
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
Hi George
actually the native code we have in security should work on both
IA32 and IPF
So, it seems that with your suggestion we will have to have
two copies of that code. Please correct me if I'm wrong
What is about the following str:
+-win/
| |
| +--IA32/
| |
| +--IPF/
| |
| +-- common1.cpp
| |
| +-- common2.cpp
| |
...
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/2/27, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>
> Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
> > Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >
> >> Hi George,
> >>
> >> why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
> >>
> >>
> > Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable part ;-)
> > Correct me if I am wrong.
>
> ...er...well, I'm not sure that it was foremost in my thoughts when I
> was working through the layout changes :-)
>
> I simply wanted to have a way of differentiating between code written
> for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on Intel architecture. I am assuming that
> the Windows code there today is for 32 bit. I did wonder about splitting
> those directory names up so that instead of a folder called "win.IA32"
> we had a "win" folder with a "IA32" sub-folder (and likewise for Linux).
> i.e.
>
> java
> |
> +-common
> |
> +-win
> | |
> | \---IA32
> |
> +-linux
> | |
> | \---IA32
> |
> ...
>
>
> The above approach leaves the way open for other variants (e.g. 64-bit
> code) to be added in new sub-folders beneath "win" and "linux". In the
> end I opted for consistency with the "win.IA32" and "linux.IA32" names
> that are currently being used under the trunk/native-src folder in SVN.
>
> Best regards,
> George
> IBM UK
>
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jean-Frederic
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Mikhail
> >>
> >> 2006/2/24, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly
> >>> for me
> >>> when I read over the sent note (sigh).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <SECURITY ROOT>
> >>> |
> >>> |
> >>> +---src
> >>> | |
> >>> | +---main
> >>> | | |
> >>> | | +---java
> >>> | | | |
> >>> | | | +---common
> >>> | | | |
> >>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>> | | | |
> >>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>> | | |
> >>> | | +---native
> >>> | | | |
> >>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>> | | | |
> >>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>> | | |
> >>> | | \---resources
> >>> | | |
> >>> | | \---common
> >>> | |
> >>> | +---test
> >>> | |
> >>> | +---java
> >>> | |
> >>> | +---common
> >>> | |
> >>> | +---linux.IA32
> >>> | |
> >>> | \---win.IA32
> >>> |
> >>> +---doc
> >>> | |
> >>> | \---images
> >>> |
> >>> +---make
> >>> | |
> >>> | \---native
> >>> | |
> >>> | +---linux
> >>> | |
> >>> | \---windows
> >>> |
> >>> +---META-INF
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> George
> >>> IBM UK
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> George Harley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
> >>>> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
> >>>> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
> >>>> found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
> >>>> workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
> >>>> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
> >>>> .project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my private
> >>>> workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
> >>>> its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
> >>>> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this
> >>>> list,
> >>>> I started to move things around a little to try and make things a
> >>>> little
> >>>> more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
> >>>> interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
> >>>>
> >>>> * it has platform-specific Java code
> >>>> * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
> >>>>
> >>>> Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the other
> >>>> modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out several
> >>>> missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file - including
> >>>> one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the Harmony
> >>>> repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants to
> >>>> import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist in the
> >>>> repository - although an implementation has been contributed [2]).
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary
> >>>> tweaks to
> >>>> the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
> >>>> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
> >>>> as before.
> >>>>
> >>>> Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note renders
> >>>> alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security structure
> >>>> that
> >>>> I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for clarity) :
> >>>>
> >>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
> >>>> |
> >>>> |
> >>>> +---src
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +---main
> >>>> | | |
> >>>> | | +---java
> >>>> | | | |
> >>>> | | | +---common
> >>>> | | | |
> >>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>> | | | |
> >>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>> | | | | | +---native
> >>>> | | | |
> >>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
> >>>> | | | |
> >>>> | | | \---win.IA32
> >>>> | | |
> >>>> | | \---resources
> >>>> | | |
> >>>> | | \---common
> >>>> | | | +---test
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +---java
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +---common
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +---linux.IA32
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | \---win.IA32
> >>>> |
> >>>> +---doc
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | \---images
> >>>> |
> >>>> +---make
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | \---native
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | +---linux
> >>>> | |
> >>>> | \---windows
> >>>> |
> >>>> +---META-INF
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to Eclipse as
> >>>> source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
> >>>> "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
> >>>> "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so on...).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
> >>>> re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
> >>>> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> George
> >>>> IBM UK
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Security module layout
Posted by George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>.
Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>
>> Hi George,
>>
>> why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
>>
>>
> Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable part ;-)
> Correct me if I am wrong.
...er...well, I'm not sure that it was foremost in my thoughts when I
was working through the layout changes :-)
I simply wanted to have a way of differentiating between code written
for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on Intel architecture. I am assuming that
the Windows code there today is for 32 bit. I did wonder about splitting
those directory names up so that instead of a folder called "win.IA32"
we had a "win" folder with a "IA32" sub-folder (and likewise for Linux).
i.e.
java
|
+-common
|
+-win
| |
| \---IA32
|
+-linux
| |
| \---IA32
|
...
The above approach leaves the way open for other variants (e.g. 64-bit
code) to be added in new sub-folders beneath "win" and "linux". In the
end I opted for consistency with the "win.IA32" and "linux.IA32" names
that are currently being used under the trunk/native-src folder in SVN.
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
>
> Cheers
>
> Jean-Frederic
>
>> Thanks,
>> Mikhail
>>
>> 2006/2/24, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly
>>> for me
>>> when I read over the sent note (sigh).
>>>
>>>
>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
>>> |
>>> |
>>> +---src
>>> | |
>>> | +---main
>>> | | |
>>> | | +---java
>>> | | | |
>>> | | | +---common
>>> | | | |
>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>> | | | |
>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>> | | |
>>> | | +---native
>>> | | | |
>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>> | | | |
>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>> | | |
>>> | | \---resources
>>> | | |
>>> | | \---common
>>> | |
>>> | +---test
>>> | |
>>> | +---java
>>> | |
>>> | +---common
>>> | |
>>> | +---linux.IA32
>>> | |
>>> | \---win.IA32
>>> |
>>> +---doc
>>> | |
>>> | \---images
>>> |
>>> +---make
>>> | |
>>> | \---native
>>> | |
>>> | +---linux
>>> | |
>>> | \---windows
>>> |
>>> +---META-INF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> George
>>> IBM UK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> George Harley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
>>>> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
>>>> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
>>>> found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
>>>> workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
>>>> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
>>>> .project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my private
>>>> workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
>>>> its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
>>>> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this
>>>> list,
>>>> I started to move things around a little to try and make things a
>>>> little
>>>> more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
>>>> interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
>>>>
>>>> * it has platform-specific Java code
>>>> * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
>>>>
>>>> Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the other
>>>> modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out several
>>>> missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file - including
>>>> one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the Harmony
>>>> repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants to
>>>> import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist in the
>>>> repository - although an implementation has been contributed [2]).
>>>>
>>>> In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary
>>>> tweaks to
>>>> the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
>>>> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
>>>> as before.
>>>>
>>>> Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note renders
>>>> alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security structure
>>>> that
>>>> I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for clarity) :
>>>>
>>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> +---src
>>>> | |
>>>> | +---main
>>>> | | |
>>>> | | +---java
>>>> | | | |
>>>> | | | +---common
>>>> | | | |
>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>> | | | |
>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>> | | | | | +---native
>>>> | | | |
>>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>>> | | | |
>>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>>> | | |
>>>> | | \---resources
>>>> | | |
>>>> | | \---common
>>>> | | | +---test
>>>> | |
>>>> | +---java
>>>> | |
>>>> | +---common
>>>> | |
>>>> | +---linux.IA32
>>>> | |
>>>> | \---win.IA32
>>>> |
>>>> +---doc
>>>> | |
>>>> | \---images
>>>> |
>>>> +---make
>>>> | |
>>>> | \---native
>>>> | |
>>>> | +---linux
>>>> | |
>>>> | \---windows
>>>> |
>>>> +---META-INF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to Eclipse as
>>>> source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
>>>> "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
>>>> "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so on...).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
>>>> re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
>>>> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> George
>>>> IBM UK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Security module layout
Posted by Jean-frederic Clere <jf...@gmail.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>Hi George,
>
>why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
>
>
Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable part ;-)
Correct me if I am wrong.
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
>Thanks,
>Mikhail
>
>2006/2/24, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly for me
>>when I read over the sent note (sigh).
>>
>>
>> <SECURITY ROOT>
>> |
>> |
>> +---src
>> | |
>> | +---main
>> | | |
>> | | +---java
>> | | | |
>> | | | +---common
>> | | | |
>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>> | | | |
>> | | | \---win.IA32
>> | | |
>> | | +---native
>> | | | |
>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>> | | | |
>> | | | \---win.IA32
>> | | |
>> | | \---resources
>> | | |
>> | | \---common
>> | |
>> | +---test
>> | |
>> | +---java
>> | |
>> | +---common
>> | |
>> | +---linux.IA32
>> | |
>> | \---win.IA32
>> |
>> +---doc
>> | |
>> | \---images
>> |
>> +---make
>> | |
>> | \---native
>> | |
>> | +---linux
>> | |
>> | \---windows
>> |
>> +---META-INF
>>
>>
>>
>>Best regards,
>>George
>>IBM UK
>>
>>
>>
>>George Harley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
>>>developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
>>>with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
>>>found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
>>>workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
>>>that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
>>>.project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my private
>>>workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
>>>its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
>>>Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this list,
>>>I started to move things around a little to try and make things a little
>>>more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
>>>interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
>>>
>>>* it has platform-specific Java code
>>>* it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
>>>
>>>Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the other
>>>modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out several
>>>missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file - including
>>>one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the Harmony
>>>repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants to
>>>import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist in the
>>>repository - although an implementation has been contributed [2]).
>>>
>>>In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary tweaks to
>>>the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
>>>Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
>>>as before.
>>>
>>>Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note renders
>>>alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security structure that
>>>I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for clarity) :
>>>
>>> <SECURITY ROOT>
>>> |
>>> |
>>> +---src
>>> | |
>>> | +---main
>>> | | |
>>> | | +---java
>>> | | | |
>>> | | | +---common
>>> | | | |
>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>> | | | |
>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>> | | | | | +---native
>>> | | | |
>>> | | | +---linux.IA32
>>> | | | |
>>> | | | \---win.IA32
>>> | | |
>>> | | \---resources
>>> | | |
>>> | | \---common
>>> | | | +---test
>>> | |
>>> | +---java
>>> | |
>>> | +---common
>>> | |
>>> | +---linux.IA32
>>> | |
>>> | \---win.IA32
>>> |
>>> +---doc
>>> | |
>>> | \---images
>>> |
>>> +---make
>>> | |
>>> | \---native
>>> | |
>>> | +---linux
>>> | |
>>> | \---windows
>>> |
>>> +---META-INF
>>>
>>>
>>>All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to Eclipse as
>>>source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
>>>"src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
>>>"src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so on...).
>>>
>>>
>>>I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
>>>re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
>>>as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
>>>
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>George
>>>IBM UK
>>>
>>>
>>>[1]
>>>http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
>>>
>>>[2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Security module layout
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
Hi George,
why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/2/24, George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly for me
> when I read over the sent note (sigh).
>
>
> <SECURITY ROOT>
> |
> |
> +---src
> | |
> | +---main
> | | |
> | | +---java
> | | | |
> | | | +---common
> | | | |
> | | | +---linux.IA32
> | | | |
> | | | \---win.IA32
> | | |
> | | +---native
> | | | |
> | | | +---linux.IA32
> | | | |
> | | | \---win.IA32
> | | |
> | | \---resources
> | | |
> | | \---common
> | |
> | +---test
> | |
> | +---java
> | |
> | +---common
> | |
> | +---linux.IA32
> | |
> | \---win.IA32
> |
> +---doc
> | |
> | \---images
> |
> +---make
> | |
> | \---native
> | |
> | +---linux
> | |
> | \---windows
> |
> +---META-INF
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> George
> IBM UK
>
>
>
> George Harley wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
> > developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
> > with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
> > found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
> > workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
> > that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
> > .project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my private
> > workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
> > its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
> > Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this list,
> > I started to move things around a little to try and make things a little
> > more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
> > interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
> >
> > * it has platform-specific Java code
> > * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
> >
> > Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the other
> > modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out several
> > missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file - including
> > one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the Harmony
> > repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants to
> > import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist in the
> > repository - although an implementation has been contributed [2]).
> >
> > In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary tweaks to
> > the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
> > Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
> > as before.
> >
> > Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note renders
> > alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security structure that
> > I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for clarity) :
> >
> > <SECURITY ROOT>
> > |
> > |
> > +---src
> > | |
> > | +---main
> > | | |
> > | | +---java
> > | | | |
> > | | | +---common
> > | | | |
> > | | | +---linux.IA32
> > | | | |
> > | | | \---win.IA32
> > | | | | | +---native
> > | | | |
> > | | | +---linux.IA32
> > | | | |
> > | | | \---win.IA32
> > | | |
> > | | \---resources
> > | | |
> > | | \---common
> > | | | +---test
> > | |
> > | +---java
> > | |
> > | +---common
> > | |
> > | +---linux.IA32
> > | |
> > | \---win.IA32
> > |
> > +---doc
> > | |
> > | \---images
> > |
> > +---make
> > | |
> > | \---native
> > | |
> > | +---linux
> > | |
> > | \---windows
> > |
> > +---META-INF
> >
> >
> > All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to Eclipse as
> > source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
> > "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
> > "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so on...).
> >
> >
> > I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
> > re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
> > as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > George
> > IBM UK
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
> >
> > [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
> >
>
>
Re: Security module layout
Posted by George Harley <ge...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly for me
when I read over the sent note (sigh).
<SECURITY ROOT>
|
|
+---src
| |
| +---main
| | |
| | +---java
| | | |
| | | +---common
| | | |
| | | +---linux.IA32
| | | |
| | | \---win.IA32
| | |
| | +---native
| | | |
| | | +---linux.IA32
| | | |
| | | \---win.IA32
| | |
| | \---resources
| | |
| | \---common
| |
| +---test
| |
| +---java
| |
| +---common
| |
| +---linux.IA32
| |
| \---win.IA32
|
+---doc
| |
| \---images
|
+---make
| |
| \---native
| |
| +---linux
| |
| \---windows
|
+---META-INF
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
George Harley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions for
> developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After experimenting
> with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out modules/security and
> found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an Eclipse
> workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious difference is
> that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
> .project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my private
> workspace), I began to look at other differences between security and
> its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
> Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around this list,
> I started to move things around a little to try and make things a little
> more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were made more
> interesting by virtue of the following security module distinctions :
>
> * it has platform-specific Java code
> * it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
>
> Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the other
> modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out several
> missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file - including
> one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the Harmony
> repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants to
> import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist in the
> repository - although an implementation has been contributed [2]).
>
> In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary tweaks to
> the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top level"
> Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds still work
> as before.
>
> Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note renders
> alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security structure that
> I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for clarity) :
>
> <SECURITY ROOT>
> |
> |
> +---src
> | |
> | +---main
> | | |
> | | +---java
> | | | |
> | | | +---common
> | | | |
> | | | +---linux.IA32
> | | | |
> | | | \---win.IA32
> | | | | | +---native
> | | | |
> | | | +---linux.IA32
> | | | |
> | | | \---win.IA32
> | | |
> | | \---resources
> | | |
> | | \---common
> | | | +---test
> | |
> | +---java
> | |
> | +---common
> | |
> | +---linux.IA32
> | |
> | \---win.IA32
> |
> +---doc
> | |
> | \---images
> |
> +---make
> | |
> | \---native
> | |
> | +---linux
> | |
> | \---windows
> |
> +---META-INF
>
>
> All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to Eclipse as
> source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
> "src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
> "src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so on...).
>
>
> I would be really keen to hear what people think of this prototype
> re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security module
> as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
>
>
> Best regards,
> George
> IBM UK
>
>
> [1]
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
>
> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
>