Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > I had a nice chat with Doug today to try to reach a conclusion regarding > j.u.c > > Given that everyone else (Sun, IBM, BEA...) seems to use j.u.c, found here > > http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/main/java/util/concurrent/ > > I think that we'd be well-served to do so as well. It's the RI, it's > complicated, it goes w/o saying that Doug is committed to this being > right, and I'd like to have the same bugs as everyone else for now :) > > The summary of what I think we should do is simple - we take the code > from j.u.c from the above link (w/ 1 exception) into our SVN repo and > track any changes made by Doug and the jsr166 EG going forward.
So I understand correctly, are you talking about taking the source code into Harmony SVN, or creating a dependency on a binary version of that code (stored in our SVN)? Just trying to figure the rationale of taking source if the goal is to be in lock-step. Are you imagining that there may be patches created here that are ALv2'd only (and maybe therefore do not go back into Doug's copy)? > All the code is under the following terms, which are acceptable to the ASF : > > /* > * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166 > * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at > * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain > */ > > except for one file : > > http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/main/java/util/concurrent/CopyOnWriteArrayList.java > > for which I understand we can get a clean replacement from the backport. > > Now, there is an issue of our clean-room rules, and I think there's a > very neat solution that would allow us to use this code w/o getting an > ACQ from the authors of j.u.c (which Doug claims is himself, assisted by > the JSR166 EG) > > The premise of our ACQ structure is that we want to ensure that people > who have worked on a non-open/non-free implementation of a > portion/module/component of Java not work on our implementation of that > portion/module/component. > > Now, given that j.u.c in Java SE 5 is the first time this functionality > has existed, it must be the case that the contributors are not > contaminated by working on another implementation, since there are no > other implementations. We can't be contaminated because there's nothing > with which to contaminate us with. AIUI (and hypothetically) people could take a copy of the public domain code and create a proprietary derivative couldn't they? And the spec is out there for all to see, how do you know there are no other implementations? > Of course, this needs VM support, so there is work to do, but this seems > like a sane and clean way to add this functionality to Harmony classlib, > as well as build a bridge to another part of the Java SE ecosystem. Don't get me wrong, I think we should build the bridge -- just working things out in my head. > Comments? Things that I missed? Invite the j.u.concurrent expert group to move in <g>. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
