You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by da...@neosur.com on 2006/03/17 23:16:35 UTC
ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
As announced before we are contributing java.rmi package on behalf of ITC
(Cordoba Institute of Technology).
Below is a short description of the contribution.
Daniel Gandara
--------------------------------------------------------------
Package name java.rmi
Package Description
Clean room implementation of java.rmi following J2SE 1.5 spec
www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/index.html
Current Status
Currently our package contains implementation for:
- java.rmi
- java.rmi.dgc
- java.rmi.registry
- java.rmi.server
package java.rmi.activation and deprecated method/classes
have not been implemented. Activation have been designed but
has not been implemented yet.
Tools like rmic and rmiregistry have not been implemented.
Architectural Design
Package has been architected following a layered design, which
seem to be the most appropriate model for the RMI implementation
in accordance with the specification.
For further details check www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/architecture.html
Javadoc
Javadoc of the package can be reached here
www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/javadocRMI/index.html
Testing
Unit and integration tests (and their documentation) are
provided with the code.
Implementation Notes
The code uses J2SE 5.0 features, such as generics, so it
requires 5.0 VM and libraries (i.e.: java.util.concurrent).
It has been tested against Sun SDK, removing the original
java.rmi.* and replacing it by ours.
www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/ideas_uro.html
Known Issues
www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/knownissues.html
Specification Issues
www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/specissues.html
Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
Posted by Daniel Gandara <da...@neosur.com>.
FaeLLe wrote
>Yes i figured it was Birelli's reference counting algorithm.
yes, remember that we followed Sun's spec, and it says on section 3.3:
"RMI uses a referencecounting garbage collection algorithm similar to
Modula-3's Network Objects. (See "Network Objects" by Birrell, Nelson,
and Owicki)"
>Our university research group has currently identified faults with that
>speific algorithm and I am working on an implementation of the revised
>version.
yes, we are aware of some of the faults, like creating a circular reference.
BTW: Sun's implementation has the same problem.
>However I was wondering if you could point me towards some
>literature/material that discusses these specific features that are imposed
>by RMI's dgc api spec ? These would be very beneficial.
Unfortunatelly we did not have any document describing these specific
features; we worked based on Birrel algorithm and we implemented the
API, while doing that we found some non-solved issues, and we created
our own solution for them.
What we did document were some issues we found on the spec.
(follow this links for further info:
http://www.itc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/knownissues.html#10
http://www.itc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/specissues.html#8 )
Daniel
On 3/23/06, Daniel Gandara <da...@neosur.com> wrote:
>
> We use a "reference counting" algorithm based on the Modula3,
> plus specific features imposed by the rmi dgc's api spec.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "FaeLLe" <mr...@gmail.com>
> To: <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
>
>
> Hello Daniel,
>
> Can you please tell us which algorithm you made use of for the Distributed
> Garbage Collector ?
>
> I am currently researching in this field and details would benifit me.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Vikram
>
> On 3/22/06, Daniel Gandara <da...@neosur.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are thinking in making a release of java.rmi package compatible with
> > harmony's VM and classlib code (1.4.2), using the compiler options that
> > allow partial 5.0 language features, and removing all j.u.c classes we
> > use.
> > We know that we will loose performance, but it looks like it is worth a
> > try.
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > PS: Faxes have been re-sent, please let me know if there is any further
> > problem.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Geir Magnusson Jr" <ge...@pobox.com>
> > To: <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
> >
> >
> > > Thanks - this is great.
> > >
> > > Please not that every faxed document that both I and Jim, the ASF
> > > Secretary, received was unreadable.
> > >
> > > I can't know if it was the original copy, or the fax machine, but we
> > need
> > > to have everything resent again.
> > >
> > > THanks
> > >
> > > geir
> > >
> > >
> > > danielgandara@neosur.com wrote:
> > >> As announced before we are contributing java.rmi package on behalf
> of
> > >> ITC
> > >> (Cordoba Institute of Technology).
> > >>
> > >> Below is a short description of the contribution.
> > >>
> > >> Daniel Gandara
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Package name java.rmi
> > >>
> > >> Package Description
> > >>
> > >> Clean room implementation of java.rmi following J2SE 1.5 spec
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/index.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Current Status
> > >> Currently our package contains implementation for:
> > >> - java.rmi
> > >> - java.rmi.dgc
> > >> - java.rmi.registry
> > >> - java.rmi.server
> > >>
> > >> package java.rmi.activation and deprecated method/classes
> > >> have not been implemented. Activation have been designed but
> > >> has not been implemented yet.
> > >>
> > >> Tools like rmic and rmiregistry have not been implemented.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Architectural Design
> > >> Package has been architected following a layered design, which
> > >> seem to be the most appropriate model for the RMI implementation
> > >> in accordance with the specification.
> > >> For further details check
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/architecture.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Javadoc
> > >>
> > >> Javadoc of the package can be reached here
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/javadocRMI/index.html
> > >>
> > >> Testing
> > >> Unit and integration tests (and their documentation) are
> > >> provided with the code.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Implementation Notes
> > >> The code uses J2SE 5.0 features, such as generics, so it
> > >> requires 5.0 VM and libraries (i.e.: java.util.concurrent).
> > >> It has been tested against Sun SDK, removing the original
> > >> java.rmi.* and replacing it by ours.
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/ideas_uro.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Known Issues
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/knownissues.html
> > >>
> > >> Specification Issues
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/specissues.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> www.FaeLLe.com
> www.VikramMohan.com
>
>
>
--
www.FaeLLe.com
www.VikramMohan.com
Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
Posted by FaeLLe <mr...@gmail.com>.
Yes i figured it was Birelli's reference counting algorithm.
Our university research group has currently identified faults with that
speific algorithm and I am working on an implementation of the revised
version.
However I was wondering if you could point me towards some
literature/material that discusses these specific features that are imposed
by RMI's dgc api spec ? These would be very beneficial.
Thanks,
- Vikram
On 3/23/06, Daniel Gandara <da...@neosur.com> wrote:
>
> We use a "reference counting" algorithm based on the Modula3,
> plus specific features imposed by the rmi dgc's api spec.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "FaeLLe" <mr...@gmail.com>
> To: <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
>
>
> Hello Daniel,
>
> Can you please tell us which algorithm you made use of for the Distributed
> Garbage Collector ?
>
> I am currently researching in this field and details would benifit me.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Vikram
>
> On 3/22/06, Daniel Gandara <da...@neosur.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are thinking in making a release of java.rmi package compatible with
> > harmony's VM and classlib code (1.4.2), using the compiler options that
> > allow partial 5.0 language features, and removing all j.u.c classes we
> > use.
> > We know that we will loose performance, but it looks like it is worth a
> > try.
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > PS: Faxes have been re-sent, please let me know if there is any further
> > problem.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Geir Magnusson Jr" <ge...@pobox.com>
> > To: <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
> >
> >
> > > Thanks - this is great.
> > >
> > > Please not that every faxed document that both I and Jim, the ASF
> > > Secretary, received was unreadable.
> > >
> > > I can't know if it was the original copy, or the fax machine, but we
> > need
> > > to have everything resent again.
> > >
> > > THanks
> > >
> > > geir
> > >
> > >
> > > danielgandara@neosur.com wrote:
> > >> As announced before we are contributing java.rmi package on behalf
> of
> > >> ITC
> > >> (Cordoba Institute of Technology).
> > >>
> > >> Below is a short description of the contribution.
> > >>
> > >> Daniel Gandara
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Package name java.rmi
> > >>
> > >> Package Description
> > >>
> > >> Clean room implementation of java.rmi following J2SE 1.5 spec
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/index.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Current Status
> > >> Currently our package contains implementation for:
> > >> - java.rmi
> > >> - java.rmi.dgc
> > >> - java.rmi.registry
> > >> - java.rmi.server
> > >>
> > >> package java.rmi.activation and deprecated method/classes
> > >> have not been implemented. Activation have been designed but
> > >> has not been implemented yet.
> > >>
> > >> Tools like rmic and rmiregistry have not been implemented.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Architectural Design
> > >> Package has been architected following a layered design, which
> > >> seem to be the most appropriate model for the RMI implementation
> > >> in accordance with the specification.
> > >> For further details check
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/architecture.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Javadoc
> > >>
> > >> Javadoc of the package can be reached here
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/javadocRMI/index.html
> > >>
> > >> Testing
> > >> Unit and integration tests (and their documentation) are
> > >> provided with the code.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Implementation Notes
> > >> The code uses J2SE 5.0 features, such as generics, so it
> > >> requires 5.0 VM and libraries (i.e.: java.util.concurrent).
> > >> It has been tested against Sun SDK, removing the original
> > >> java.rmi.* and replacing it by ours.
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/ideas_uro.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Known Issues
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/knownissues.html
> > >>
> > >> Specification Issues
> > >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/specissues.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> www.FaeLLe.com
> www.VikramMohan.com
>
>
>
--
www.FaeLLe.com
www.VikramMohan.com
Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
Posted by Daniel Gandara <da...@neosur.com>.
We use a "reference counting" algorithm based on the Modula3,
plus specific features imposed by the rmi dgc's api spec.
Daniel
----- Original Message -----
From: "FaeLLe" <mr...@gmail.com>
To: <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
Hello Daniel,
Can you please tell us which algorithm you made use of for the Distributed
Garbage Collector ?
I am currently researching in this field and details would benifit me.
Regards,
- Vikram
On 3/22/06, Daniel Gandara <da...@neosur.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We are thinking in making a release of java.rmi package compatible with
> harmony's VM and classlib code (1.4.2), using the compiler options that
> allow partial 5.0 language features, and removing all j.u.c classes we
> use.
> We know that we will loose performance, but it looks like it is worth a
> try.
> What do you think?
>
> Daniel
>
> PS: Faxes have been re-sent, please let me know if there is any further
> problem.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr" <ge...@pobox.com>
> To: <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
>
>
> > Thanks - this is great.
> >
> > Please not that every faxed document that both I and Jim, the ASF
> > Secretary, received was unreadable.
> >
> > I can't know if it was the original copy, or the fax machine, but we
> need
> > to have everything resent again.
> >
> > THanks
> >
> > geir
> >
> >
> > danielgandara@neosur.com wrote:
> >> As announced before we are contributing java.rmi package on behalf of
> >> ITC
> >> (Cordoba Institute of Technology).
> >>
> >> Below is a short description of the contribution.
> >>
> >> Daniel Gandara
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Package name java.rmi
> >>
> >> Package Description
> >>
> >> Clean room implementation of java.rmi following J2SE 1.5 spec
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Current Status
> >> Currently our package contains implementation for:
> >> - java.rmi
> >> - java.rmi.dgc
> >> - java.rmi.registry
> >> - java.rmi.server
> >>
> >> package java.rmi.activation and deprecated method/classes
> >> have not been implemented. Activation have been designed but
> >> has not been implemented yet.
> >>
> >> Tools like rmic and rmiregistry have not been implemented.
> >>
> >>
> >> Architectural Design
> >> Package has been architected following a layered design, which
> >> seem to be the most appropriate model for the RMI implementation
> >> in accordance with the specification.
> >> For further details check
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/architecture.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Javadoc
> >>
> >> Javadoc of the package can be reached here
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/javadocRMI/index.html
> >>
> >> Testing
> >> Unit and integration tests (and their documentation) are
> >> provided with the code.
> >>
> >>
> >> Implementation Notes
> >> The code uses J2SE 5.0 features, such as generics, so it
> >> requires 5.0 VM and libraries (i.e.: java.util.concurrent).
> >> It has been tested against Sun SDK, removing the original
> >> java.rmi.* and replacing it by ours.
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/ideas_uro.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Known Issues
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/knownissues.html
> >>
> >> Specification Issues
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/specissues.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
--
www.FaeLLe.com
www.VikramMohan.com
Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
Posted by FaeLLe <mr...@gmail.com>.
Hello Daniel,
Can you please tell us which algorithm you made use of for the Distributed
Garbage Collector ?
I am currently researching in this field and details would benifit me.
Regards,
- Vikram
On 3/22/06, Daniel Gandara <da...@neosur.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We are thinking in making a release of java.rmi package compatible with
> harmony's VM and classlib code (1.4.2), using the compiler options that
> allow partial 5.0 language features, and removing all j.u.c classes we
> use.
> We know that we will loose performance, but it looks like it is worth a
> try.
> What do you think?
>
> Daniel
>
> PS: Faxes have been re-sent, please let me know if there is any further
> problem.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr" <ge...@pobox.com>
> To: <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
>
>
> > Thanks - this is great.
> >
> > Please not that every faxed document that both I and Jim, the ASF
> > Secretary, received was unreadable.
> >
> > I can't know if it was the original copy, or the fax machine, but we
> need
> > to have everything resent again.
> >
> > THanks
> >
> > geir
> >
> >
> > danielgandara@neosur.com wrote:
> >> As announced before we are contributing java.rmi package on behalf of
> >> ITC
> >> (Cordoba Institute of Technology).
> >>
> >> Below is a short description of the contribution.
> >>
> >> Daniel Gandara
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Package name java.rmi
> >>
> >> Package Description
> >>
> >> Clean room implementation of java.rmi following J2SE 1.5 spec
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Current Status
> >> Currently our package contains implementation for:
> >> - java.rmi
> >> - java.rmi.dgc
> >> - java.rmi.registry
> >> - java.rmi.server
> >>
> >> package java.rmi.activation and deprecated method/classes
> >> have not been implemented. Activation have been designed but
> >> has not been implemented yet.
> >>
> >> Tools like rmic and rmiregistry have not been implemented.
> >>
> >>
> >> Architectural Design
> >> Package has been architected following a layered design, which
> >> seem to be the most appropriate model for the RMI implementation
> >> in accordance with the specification.
> >> For further details check
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/architecture.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Javadoc
> >>
> >> Javadoc of the package can be reached here
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/javadocRMI/index.html
> >>
> >> Testing
> >> Unit and integration tests (and their documentation) are
> >> provided with the code.
> >>
> >>
> >> Implementation Notes
> >> The code uses J2SE 5.0 features, such as generics, so it
> >> requires 5.0 VM and libraries (i.e.: java.util.concurrent).
> >> It has been tested against Sun SDK, removing the original
> >> java.rmi.* and replacing it by ours.
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/ideas_uro.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Known Issues
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/knownissues.html
> >>
> >> Specification Issues
> >> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/specissues.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
--
www.FaeLLe.com
www.VikramMohan.com
Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
Posted by Daniel Gandara <da...@neosur.com>.
Hi,
We are thinking in making a release of java.rmi package compatible with
harmony's VM and classlib code (1.4.2), using the compiler options that
allow partial 5.0 language features, and removing all j.u.c classes we use.
We know that we will loose performance, but it looks like it is worth a try.
What do you think?
Daniel
PS: Faxes have been re-sent, please let me know if there is any further
problem.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr" <ge...@pobox.com>
To: <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
> Thanks - this is great.
>
> Please not that every faxed document that both I and Jim, the ASF
> Secretary, received was unreadable.
>
> I can't know if it was the original copy, or the fax machine, but we need
> to have everything resent again.
>
> THanks
>
> geir
>
>
> danielgandara@neosur.com wrote:
>> As announced before we are contributing java.rmi package on behalf of
>> ITC
>> (Cordoba Institute of Technology).
>>
>> Below is a short description of the contribution.
>>
>> Daniel Gandara
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Package name java.rmi
>>
>> Package Description
>>
>> Clean room implementation of java.rmi following J2SE 1.5 spec
>> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/index.html
>>
>>
>> Current Status
>> Currently our package contains implementation for:
>> - java.rmi
>> - java.rmi.dgc
>> - java.rmi.registry
>> - java.rmi.server
>>
>> package java.rmi.activation and deprecated method/classes
>> have not been implemented. Activation have been designed but
>> has not been implemented yet.
>>
>> Tools like rmic and rmiregistry have not been implemented.
>>
>>
>> Architectural Design
>> Package has been architected following a layered design, which
>> seem to be the most appropriate model for the RMI implementation
>> in accordance with the specification.
>> For further details check
>> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/architecture.html
>>
>>
>> Javadoc
>>
>> Javadoc of the package can be reached here
>> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/javadocRMI/index.html
>>
>> Testing
>> Unit and integration tests (and their documentation) are
>> provided with the code.
>>
>>
>> Implementation Notes
>> The code uses J2SE 5.0 features, such as generics, so it
>> requires 5.0 VM and libraries (i.e.: java.util.concurrent).
>> It has been tested against Sun SDK, removing the original
>> java.rmi.* and replacing it by ours.
>> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/ideas_uro.html
>>
>>
>> Known Issues
>> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/knownissues.html
>>
>> Specification Issues
>> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/specissues.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: ITC: Contribution of java.rmi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Thanks - this is great.
Please not that every faxed document that both I and Jim, the ASF
Secretary, received was unreadable.
I can't know if it was the original copy, or the fax machine, but we
need to have everything resent again.
THanks
geir
danielgandara@neosur.com wrote:
> As announced before we are contributing java.rmi package on behalf of ITC
> (Cordoba Institute of Technology).
>
> Below is a short description of the contribution.
>
> Daniel Gandara
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Package name java.rmi
>
> Package Description
>
> Clean room implementation of java.rmi following J2SE 1.5 spec
> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/index.html
>
>
> Current Status
> Currently our package contains implementation for:
> - java.rmi
> - java.rmi.dgc
> - java.rmi.registry
> - java.rmi.server
>
> package java.rmi.activation and deprecated method/classes
> have not been implemented. Activation have been designed but
> has not been implemented yet.
>
> Tools like rmic and rmiregistry have not been implemented.
>
>
> Architectural Design
> Package has been architected following a layered design, which
> seem to be the most appropriate model for the RMI implementation
> in accordance with the specification.
> For further details check www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/architecture.html
>
>
> Javadoc
>
> Javadoc of the package can be reached here
> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/javadocRMI/index.html
>
> Testing
> Unit and integration tests (and their documentation) are
> provided with the code.
>
>
> Implementation Notes
> The code uses J2SE 5.0 features, such as generics, so it
> requires 5.0 VM and libraries (i.e.: java.util.concurrent).
> It has been tested against Sun SDK, removing the original
> java.rmi.* and replacing it by ours.
> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/ideas_uro.html
>
>
> Known Issues
> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/knownissues.html
>
> Specification Issues
> www.fitc.unc.edu.ar/javadev/rmi/specissues.html
>
>
>
>
>
>