On 17 May 2006 at 12:30, "Daniel Gandara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Hindess wrote: > > > > Daniel, > > > > I've just contributed a JIRA, > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-471 > > that integrates the ITC rmi implementation as modules/rmi. (The jsr14 > > version. Only the code at the moment, I creating the scripts/patches > > for the tests next.) > > We've been working on improvements to the rmi test suite, > I've contributed that at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-473 > (I created a new JIRA since previous one HARMONY-211 was closed-) > so please take that test suite.
Thanks for the heads-up. I just saw the JIRA messages. (I notice it includes all the code again and is classified as a contribution. But I assume this is just a derivative work of the previous contribution rather than a new contribution? That is we don't need to wait for another vote.) Integrating the tests was proving interesting. Have you been following the discussion of the test naming/layout conventions? The latest proposal is here: http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html I was having a little difficulty in (quickly) figuring out which tests are implementation-independent (api) tests. Or indeed which tests will run stand-alone without any infrastructure being configured. Perhaps you could help? I don't really like the idea of integrating code without at least some tests that everyone can run. In the meantime, I'll take a look at the new JIRA. > Daniel Gandara > BTW: we are a bunch of Daniels here at Cordoba :))) ;-) Regards, -Mark. > > > > On 17 May 2006 at 11:19, "Daniel Fridlender" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> After a discussion we had a few weeks ago in this forum on the > >> different implementations of java.math donated to Harmony > >> (Harmony-(39+380) and Harmony-199) we (ITC) decided to voluteer for > >> the task of integrating them into a single implementation which would > >> benefit from the best features of Harmony-39, 380 and 199. > >> > >> We will consider comparing on a method-by-method level but also on > >> ideas level so that the new implementation will probably require > >> re-programming good ideas from the existing implementations. In the > >> case of BigInteger we will also compare the benefits of the different > >> internal representations. > >> > >> Right now we are analysing the two implementations. Once we are done > >> with this analysis we will make it public and propose a way to proceed > >> towards an integration. > >> > >> BTW, we had problems patching Harmony-380 over Harmony-39, it attempts > >> to erase non-existing lines. Did we miss something? Is there any > >> other intermediate patch that we have missed? > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Daniel Fridlender > >> ITC --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
