You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> on 2007/05/07 07:58:02 UTC
Re: 2Stuart: [general] Removing "endorsed" packages from JAPI reports
I've counted japitool result for the "endorsed" packages as I promised before.
RI5 vs. Harmony M1 result is 98.33%. Harmony M1 vs. RI5 result is 99.78%.
The results looks pretty good :)
The results have been published on the web [1], [2]. Number of
discovered issues is fixed in svn.
SY, Alexey
[1]http://people.apache.org/~apetrenko/japitool/jdk5vsharmony5.javajavax.html
[2]http://people.apache.org/~apetrenko/japitool/harmony5vsjdk5.javajavax.html
2007/4/26, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> 2007/4/26, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>:
> > And we can do this ourselves...
>
> thanks for volunteering!
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> >
> > 2007/4/26, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> > > What we need I think is completeness metrics. Since those differences
> > > that are caused by newer specs are OK, they don't affect completeness.
> > >
> > > So the real API completeness might be higher than what we see now.
> > > Having the real picture would help us to first stick those really unimplemented
> > > classes remained and second better position our state
> > >
> > > So it's good to have both: compatibility that Stuart is currently measuring
> > > and completeness to what we want to achive.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mikhail
> > >
> > > 2007/4/26, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
> > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > > > well, let's resume discussion whether Harmony must contain implementation
> > > > > of the endorsed specs of the same version as RI or may contain a newer
> > > > > version
> > > > >
> > > > > Tim, could you please comment on that?
> > > >
> > > > Only to say that the SE spec allows for us to implement a later version
> > > > of these endorsed external specifications; however, Stuart is measuring
> > > > compatibility to Sun's implementation, not compliance. We should expect
> > > > to see a difference to the extent that the Corba code is incompatible
> > > > with previous versions.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Tim
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: 2Stuart: [general] Removing "endorsed" packages from JAPI reports
Posted by Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com>.
On 5/7/07, Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/07, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> > I've counted japitool result for the "endorsed" packages as I promised before.
> > RI5 vs. Harmony M1 result is 98.33%. Harmony M1 vs. RI5 result is 99.78%.
> > The results looks pretty good :)
> >
>
> I had a quick look at generated reports and found that column 'minor'
> was not included. That makes statistics to look a bit better :-) As I
> see the column counts SerialVersionUID incompatibilities. Do you think
> they can be ignored?
>
Also could you fix pages' headers. They say:
- Results of comparison between jdk15.javajavax and harmony.javajavax
- Results of comparison between harmony.javajavax and jdk15.javajavax
-Stepan.
> > The results have been published on the web [1], [2]. Number of
> > discovered issues is fixed in svn.
> >
> > SY, Alexey
> >
> > [1]http://people.apache.org/~apetrenko/japitool/jdk5vsharmony5.javajavax.html
> > [2]http://people.apache.org/~apetrenko/japitool/harmony5vsjdk5.javajavax.html
> >
> > 2007/4/26, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> > > 2007/4/26, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>:
> > > > And we can do this ourselves...
> > >
> > > thanks for volunteering!
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mikhail
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2007/4/26, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > What we need I think is completeness metrics. Since those differences
> > > > > that are caused by newer specs are OK, they don't affect completeness.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the real API completeness might be higher than what we see now.
> > > > > Having the real picture would help us to first stick those really unimplemented
> > > > > classes remained and second better position our state
> > > > >
> > > > > So it's good to have both: compatibility that Stuart is currently measuring
> > > > > and completeness to what we want to achive.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Mikhail
> > > > >
> > > > > 2007/4/26, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > > > > > well, let's resume discussion whether Harmony must contain implementation
> > > > > > > of the endorsed specs of the same version as RI or may contain a newer
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tim, could you please comment on that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only to say that the SE spec allows for us to implement a later version
> > > > > > of these endorsed external specifications; however, Stuart is measuring
> > > > > > compatibility to Sun's implementation, not compliance. We should expect
> > > > > > to see a difference to the extent that the Corba code is incompatible
> > > > > > with previous versions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Tim
>
--
Stepan Mishura
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
Re: 2Stuart: [general] Removing "endorsed" packages from JAPI reports
Posted by Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com>.
On 5/7/07, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> I've counted japitool result for the "endorsed" packages as I promised before.
> RI5 vs. Harmony M1 result is 98.33%. Harmony M1 vs. RI5 result is 99.78%.
> The results looks pretty good :)
>
I had a quick look at generated reports and found that column 'minor'
was not included. That makes statistics to look a bit better :-) As I
see the column counts SerialVersionUID incompatibilities. Do you think
they can be ignored?
-Stepan.
> The results have been published on the web [1], [2]. Number of
> discovered issues is fixed in svn.
>
> SY, Alexey
>
> [1]http://people.apache.org/~apetrenko/japitool/jdk5vsharmony5.javajavax.html
> [2]http://people.apache.org/~apetrenko/japitool/harmony5vsjdk5.javajavax.html
>
> 2007/4/26, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> > 2007/4/26, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>:
> > > And we can do this ourselves...
> >
> > thanks for volunteering!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> > >
> > > 2007/4/26, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> > > > What we need I think is completeness metrics. Since those differences
> > > > that are caused by newer specs are OK, they don't affect completeness.
> > > >
> > > > So the real API completeness might be higher than what we see now.
> > > > Having the real picture would help us to first stick those really unimplemented
> > > > classes remained and second better position our state
> > > >
> > > > So it's good to have both: compatibility that Stuart is currently measuring
> > > > and completeness to what we want to achive.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Mikhail
> > > >
> > > > 2007/4/26, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
> > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > > > > well, let's resume discussion whether Harmony must contain implementation
> > > > > > of the endorsed specs of the same version as RI or may contain a newer
> > > > > > version
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tim, could you please comment on that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Only to say that the SE spec allows for us to implement a later version
> > > > > of these endorsed external specifications; however, Stuart is measuring
> > > > > compatibility to Sun's implementation, not compliance. We should expect
> > > > > to see a difference to the extent that the Corba code is incompatible
> > > > > with previous versions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Tim