Hi Richard,
On 3/21/06, Richard Liang wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Good unit tests are going to be testing things that are package
protected. You can't do that if you aren't in the same package
(obviously). With the custom of putting in things in o.a.h.t are we
implicitly
Just two cents (or a little more) from the peanut gallery...
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:45:42PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
Just to clarify terminology -- unit tests are a 'style' of test that
focus on particular units of functionality. Unit tests can be both
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 06:01:48PM -0800, Weldon Washburn wrote:
Below is a list of modified kernel files that allow Harmony ClassLib
to run hello world on any JVM that is expecting GNU Classpath.
If that means what I think it means that's *awesome*. Once this code is
in SVN and tested a bit I
I detect a difference in approach between doing things right and
doing the least amount of work to get things running. I think both
are good ways to make progress, and we should do both.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 10:49:37AM +0800, Paulex Yang wrote:
There has been a VM/classlib interface
Hello
I'm trying to build Harmony on Windows XP with free MSFT soft only.
I've downloaded already ~1Gb of various free MSFT soft, made some hacks
on various files and now need to compile *.asm we have in native-src.
note our readme does not mention that type of files /note
Is there any way to
Hi gang,
Just some soul-searching on a sunny wednesday morning (over here
anyways)...
much of the traffic I see these days on harmony-dev (I'm through the
back-log. Yay!) to me looks like lots of people in violent agreement
and it prompts me to write messages like this, eg trying to help the
Mikhail
I tried same thing before, and failed in same reason, I cannot find this
message in mailing list archive, but I remembered I asked this question
before. The facts made me crazy is I had to download all those things
like MS platform SDK, .Net SDK and vctoolkit2003, and then had to
Paulex Yang wrote:
Mikhail
I tried same thing before, and failed in same reason, I cannot find
this message in mailing list archive, but I remembered I asked this
question before. The facts made me crazy is I had to download all
those things like MS platform SDK, .Net SDK and vctoolkit2003,
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Just a random idea... Why not have a special testing mode in the VM
that would trigger special permissions to code in .test packages?
You wouldn't need that when testing in the VM. :)
That's why Tim suggested o.a.h.test. so then you stay out of package
namespace
I had the same problem - I have to use the non-free-as-in-beer,
certainly-not-as-in-speech MSFT Visual Studio .NET 2003 toolchain, plus
some other package thingy from MSFT that adds something to it. (I don't
remember).
I keep forgetting to suggest this to people who pop in here... can
Leo Simons wrote:
Just two cents (or a little more) from the peanut gallery...
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:45:42PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
Just to clarify terminology -- unit tests are a 'style' of test that
focus on particular units of functionality. Unit tests
I think it should be possible to solve this by using the __asm keyword,
because the inline assembler is integrated in the compiler. This is just
an idea, I don't know how much trouble could come with this, as it would
require rewriting/reorganizing .asm files into .c ones.
Geir Magnusson Jr
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
I know that you'll be disappointed if I didn't ...
Geir Magnusson Jr (JIRA) wrote:
snip
Resolution: Won't Fix
This has been taken care of elsewhere, IIRC. Resolving for now to
see if there's howls of protest...
How was it resolved?
I
Anyone here ever heard of OpenWatcom?
http://www.openwatcom.org
It's the product formerly known as Watcom C++ 10.6. Now open source, thanks
to Sybase and Scitech Software.
FC
On 3/22/06, Zsejki Sorin Miklós [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had the same problem - I have to use the
Pulling out of the various threads where we have been discussing, can we
agree on the problem :
We have unique problems compared to other Java projects because we need
to find a way to reliably test the things that are commonly expected to
be a solid point of reference - namely the core class
This sounds like a bug in the *spec*, because it means that
theoretically, there is 1.4 code that won't compile under 1.5 due to
reasons other than collision w/ language changes and 1.4 binary wouldn't
run.
Right?
geir
Svetlana Samoilenko (JIRA) wrote:
private serialVersionID field should
George Harley wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
I know that you'll be disappointed if I didn't ...
Geir Magnusson Jr (JIRA) wrote:
snip
Resolution: Won't Fix
This has been taken care of elsewhere, IIRC. Resolving for now to
see if there's howls of protest...
How
Zsejki Sorin Miklós wrote:
I think it should be possible to solve this by using the __asm keyword,
because the inline assembler is integrated in the compiler. This is just
an idea, I don't know how much trouble could come with this, as it would
require rewriting/reorganizing .asm files into
I don't think that it is bug in specs.
The spec 1.5 for SecretKey interface reads:
Field: serialVersionUID
The class fingerprint that is set to indicate serialization
compatibility since J2SE 1.4.
Mikhail, what is your opinion?
Regards,
Svetlana
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr
Leo Simons wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 06:41:56AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
[SNIP]
You forgot one - integration test, which is a unit test that's been
around long enough to shave. :) (It's actually not a unit test...)
integration test -- any test that is not an
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 07:15:28AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Pulling out of the various threads where we have been discussing, can we
agree on the problem :
We have unique problems compared to other Java projects because we need
to find a way to reliably test the things that are
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
I know that you'll be disappointed if I didn't ...
Geir Magnusson Jr (JIRA) wrote:
snip
Resolution: Won't Fix
This has been taken care of elsewhere, IIRC. Resolving for now to
see if there's
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 07:34:16AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Heh. You find *those* by running the app server tests :-). I suspect that
running the J2EE TCK against geronimo running on harmony and comparing it
with running the J2EE TCK against geronimo running on the sun jdk is
going to
As far as it is documented, it is a feature rather than a bug :)
The change in the spec is incompatible, but new variant is more logical.
So, 1.4 spec bug seems to be fixed.
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/3/22, Samoilenko, Svetlana V [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't think that it is bug in specs.
The spec
Leo Simons wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 07:15:28AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Pulling out of the various threads where we have been discussing, can we
agree on the problem :
We have unique problems compared to other Java projects because we need
to find a way to reliably test the
George Harley wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Do you think this should be re-opened, or an new JIRA created to keep
things clear?
geir
Hi,
My vote is to keep it closed since the original issue has gone away.
Is there something you want to recover from it that adds functionality?
Leo Simons wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 07:34:16AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
LEO :
I'll point out that every time you restrict to an ordered sequence of
taking care of things in an open souce community you do slow them down just
a little (hey, that's an interesting assertion. Hmm.
Right, it is 1.4 spec bug. I've serialized the same objects on 1.4 and
1.5implementations and compared byte arrays - they are equal.
Thanks,
Stepan.
On 3/22/06, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
As far as it is documented, it is a feature rather than a bug :)
The change in the spec is incompatible, but
+1 for Paulex.
Weldon, you might also find the documentation about the Harmony kernel
classes interesting...
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/doc/kernel_doc/html/index.html#KernelJavaClasses
Best regards,
George
Paulex Yang wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 08:02:44AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 07:15:28AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Pulling out of the various threads where we have been discussing, can we
agree on the problem :
We have unique problems compared to other
Hi,
This sounds great. Could you give us more information on how you have
configured your launching environment ? Are you using the Harmony
launcher ? Are you building your versions of the kernel classes into a
kernel.jar that gets dropped into the runtime bootclasspath ?
It sounds like
Leo Simons wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 08:02:44AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 07:15:28AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Pulling out of the various threads where we have been discussing, can we
agree on the problem :
We have unique problems
Hi Harmony developers,
So, you might have heard of unofficial rumors of potential collaboration
between the Harmony project and the SableVM project. Here's a message I
sent lately on the SableVM mailing list:
http://sablevm.org/lists/sablevm-devel/2006-March/000608.html
To summarize the public
I've downloaded masm32 from masm32.com it has ml.exe and some other things
that I have previosly found in MSFT (I seem could save hundreds Mb of traffic)
Now I need Delayimp.lib :)
It is referenced from native-src/win.IA32/port/makefile
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/3/22, Geir Magnusson Jr
On 3/22/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 06:01:48PM -0800, Weldon Washburn wrote:
Below is a list of modified kernel files that allow Harmony ClassLib
to run hello world on any JVM that is expecting GNU Classpath.
If that means what I think it means that's
On 3/22/06, Etienne Gagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I would like to propose, is to contribute our stable, end-user
targeted trunk version to the Harmony project. This would probably
allow for a merge of the JCVM and SableVM development efforts
+1 on the above. I suspect it will be
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Hi Harmony developers,
So, you might have heard of unofficial rumors of potential collaboration
between the Harmony project and the SableVM project. Here's a message I
sent lately on the SableVM mailing list:
http://sablevm.org/lists/sablevm-devel/2006-March/000608.html
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
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
snip
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
snip
With the custom of putting in things in o.a.h.t are we
implicitly discouraging good testing practice?
This is laughable.
You are going to have to explain why it's laughable. If you are
testing a.b.c.Foo and
I'm getting 503 Service Temporarily Unavailable responses again. ;-(
-Mark.
--
Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We are thinking in making a release
No worries. I figured it was something like that, although i'll be the first
to admit that I do and say laughable things.
Focus on the talk. Do we say 'good luck' or 'break a leg', show biz style?
Too bad we don't have swing and awt yet. Would be memorable to demonstrate
IDEA running in
Hi all,
Thanks for the positive feedback.
In my earlier message I forgot to ask: If the Harmony project is
interested in the SableVM contribution (how is that officially
decided?), what process should I follow to actually make a contribution?
I've fond a Contribution Policy web page, but I
On 3/22/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi gang,
Just some soul-searching on a sunny wednesday morning (over here
anyways)...
much of the traffic I see these days on harmony-dev (I'm through the
back-log. Yay!) to me looks like lots of people in violent agreement
and it prompts me
Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 3/22/06, Etienne Gagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I would like to propose, is to contribute our stable, end-user
targeted trunk version to the Harmony project. This would probably
allow for a merge of the JCVM and SableVM development efforts
+1 on the
Hey, +1 from me, but this comes as no surprise, I am sure.
We have a couple of things to think about here.
First, I'm going to assume that you will have no problem in getting
a) permission from all contributors to re-license under the Apache License
b) hopefully an ICLA from each contributor
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
First, I'm going to assume that you will have no problem in getting
a) permission from all contributors to re-license under the Apache License
I'm almost done with this. Only one significant permission has yet to
be received. (Yet, I got a unofficial verbal
Hi Geir,
b) hopefully an ICLA from each contributor
The ICLA rules are less restrictive than the Apache License rules:
2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
recipients of software distributed by the
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Second, we need to discuss here in Harmony the approach we want to
take with adopting the community of committers. We have many people
here that are not committers that have been working hard earning
commit status, so we need to be careful not to discourage anyone.
49 matches
Mail list logo
