Re: [JDKTools][JDWP] Shared memory transport

[Oliver Deakin]

Jimmy,Jing Lv wrote:
Hi,
2008/3/13, Oliver Deakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
  
Hi Jimmy/Alexei,

 <SNIP!>

    

Really cool !

BTW, do you need to modify the build file or some common header file
of JWDP Oliver? I'm  merging currect JDWP with Harmony Portlib and
nearly get finished (expect for a minor problem that portlib is lack
of useful select and process APIs as we already know when working on
NIO), and I may need to changing makefile and some SocketTransport and
TransportManager implementation. Please let me know if you also need
to modify such files so that we may not meet conflict. :)

  

Hi Jimmy,

I do need to modify the jpda build.xml, but it's quite a small change to 
add a Windows only make target for the dt_shmem library.

Regarding header files/makefiles, I need to make the following changes 
which may cause conflicts:
- In LastTransportError.h remove the include of SocketTransport_pd.h
- In both the unix and windows directories, move the dt_socket 
makefiles and exports.txt/dt_socket.def files into the actual dt_socket 
directories so they do not conflict with the dt_shmem makefiles (and 
make a one line change in the build.xml to point to the new location of 
the build files).

I am ready to make these changes today if they are ok with you. However, 
I can hold off if you wish to make your changes first?

Regards,
Oliver

 Regards,
 Oliver

 Jimmy,Jing Lv wrote:
 > Hi,
 >
 > 2008/2/22, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 >
 >> Jimmy,
 >>
 >>  I fully support your idea, but cannot follow the discussion fully. The
 >>  old thread mostly discussed a shared memory protocol, didn't it? This
 >>  thread no longer mentions a shared memory, but discusses an API update
 >>  instead. May be all these things are parts of the whole picture, but
 >>  the picture slips out of my mind. I would suggest being merciful to my
 >>  google-weakened brain and write some justifications of the decision
 >>  taken.
 >>
 >>
 >
 >      Yes, I never forget shared memory, but it seems we need more
 > information of that (according to the conclusion of last discussion).
 > However java6 updating is easier to work on and we've got all
 > information on java spec, as a result, IMO, we'd better start from the
 > easy beginning, and leave hard work alone until we find some other way
 > to resolve it, do you think so? :)   (Maybe someone already has a plan
 > on it :)
 >       BTW, as today is friday, have a nice weekend :)
 >
 >
 >>  For example, I believe Mikhail L. justification: "I don't think that
 >>  time and efforts are an issue. The time flies when you are having fun
 >>  :)" is quite explanatory. Or you may come up with something more
 >>  rational.
 >>
 >>  Thanks.
 >>
 >>
 >>  On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Jimmy,Jing Lv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >>  > Hi All,
 >>  >
 >>  >      As discussed before, we can start JDWP updating and improving.
 >>  >  IMHO, let's start from the easiest way, updating to java 6.
 >>  >      My proposal is:
 >>  >  1. Setup a branch of JDKTools for java6 in harmony repository
 >>  >  2. add/improve JDWP functions into java6 level. As the main updating
 >>  >  for java6 JDWP is about JDWP-protocol, it seems no much effect on VM
 >>  >  and debugger.
 >>  >
 >>  >      As M5 freeze will be done at the end of this week,  may start
 >>  >  from next week on.  Any comments/suggestions/Volunteers? Thanks!
 >>  >
 >>  >  --
 >>  >
 >>  >  Best Regards!
 >>  >
 >>  >  Jimmy, Jing Lv
 >>  >  China Software Development Lab, IBM
 >>  >
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> --
 >>  With best regards,
 >>
 >> Alexei
 >>
 >>
 >
 >
 >


 --
 Oliver Deakin
 Unless stated otherwise above:
 IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598.
 Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU


    


  

--
Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU