On Mar 30, 5:12 pm, Paul Stadig <p...@stadig.name> wrote:
> I have gotten to the point in my Clojure + Terracotta experiment, where I
> believe all of the features of Clojure are functional (Refs, Atoms,
> transactions, etc.). I do not have a way to extensively test the Clojure
> functionality, but I have run the clojure.contrib.test-clojure test suites
> successfully, as well as some simple tests on my machine.
>
> There are still some open issues (though not necessarily deal killers), and
> given the limited extent to which I have tested this, I would not consider
> this production quality in the least. I would welcome help from the Clojure
> community in testing this integration module. I'm sure there are unexplored
> corners.
>
> Being that several of the changes are relatively trivial, they could be
> easily integrated back into the Clojure core. I have detailed as best as
> possible the changes I had to make to Clojure in this report: Clojure +
> Terracotta Integration Report
> (http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg7c7v49_241g5t8tqsv)<http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg7c7v49_241g5t8tqsv>It
> is very possible that I have misunderstood things, so if there is a
> better way to accomplish any of the solutions, then let me know.
>
> I would welcome any comments, feedback, etc.
>
Thanks for the detailed report! I'll look through it soon.
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
