I wonder if we talk nicely to Nadya she'll create a 'Getting started with the BTI' page for us :-)

Tim

Sean Qiu wrote:
You can get  a brief introduction to BTI from here:
http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/buildtest/index.html
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/buildtest/trunk/infra/README.txt

You can get a development introduction of BTI from here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/buildtest/trunk/infra/SPEC.txt

If you want to know more implementation details about BTI, you can
refer to this document:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/buildtest/trunk/infra/dev-guide.txt

I hope this will be helpful to you.

2008/4/18, Aleksey Shipilev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
So, should I make the benchmark ready for running via BTI?
 Are there any guidelines and criteria it should meet?

 Thanks,

Aleksey.


 On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Sean Qiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > What about adding a web UI for our BTI?
 >  I think it is natural since we have a similar one to publish our results.
 >
 >  Just like continuum[1], it is easier to manage.
 >  Maybe we can get some hint from it.
 >
 >  Anyway, BTI is worthwhile devation.
 >
 >  [1] http://continuum.apache.org/
 >
 >
 >
 >  2008/4/16, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 >  > On 4/16/08, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >  > > 2008/4/16, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 >  > > > On 4/16/08, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >  > > > > 2008/4/16, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 >  > > > > > Is it possible to integrate into BTI? if not we can consider the 
enhanced/tools/
 >  > > > >
 >  > > > > There is one already in drlvm trunk, see 
working_vm/src/test/microbenchmark.
 >  > > > > There is no infrastructure around, it is mere store holder for now.
 >  > > > > Feel free to add benches there, they are not intended to be
 >  > > > > VM-specific.
 >  > > > >
 >  > > >
 >  > > > I would say opposite if they are DRLVM specific then it is OK to put
 >  > > > them to the folder. Otherwise (i.e. they are not VM-specific) we
 >  > > > should integrate them to BTI.
 >  > > >
 >  > > > Th point is that DRLVM workspace should contain only DRLVM specific
 >  > > > tests. For example, IMO DRLVM workspace is not the right place for
 >  > > > EHWA-API scenario.
 >  > >
 >  > > This is too radical position IMO. Absolute majority of tests in DRLVM
 >  > > are functional and not impl-specific, should we move them all to BTI?
 >  > >
 >  >
 >  > Yes, IMHO we should move them to BTI.
 >  >
 >  > The point is that any workspace (classlib/drlvm/jdktools) is not a
 >  > repository for a set of different suites.
 >  >
 >  > > Sometimes convenience of using and extending is more important for
 >  > > success. If we had appropriate infra for benchmarks I wouldn't argue,
 >  > > but now I'm afraid most contributors would rather leave a bench-case
 >  > > hanging in JIRA than dare to hack BTI. I'm happy to be proven wrong,
 >  > > though.
 >  > >
 >  >
 >  > "convenience of using and extending" is questionable for me in this case.
 >  > Well, yes I agree that from position of a DRLVM developer it is more
 >  > convenient when EHWA-API scenario is located in DRLVM workspace - no
 >  > additional efforts are required to run it. But what about classlib
 >  > developer who wants to run EHWA-API on J9 - she/he needs to checkout
 >  > DRLVM workspace. Is this convenient and extensible? (Hmm, may be I was
 >  > wrong when I insisted on integration of LDAP scenario into BTI then
 >  > into classlibrary ;-))
 >  >
 >  > Seriously, if we think that using BTI is complicated for a developer
 >  > then we should do our best and make it simpler and more convenient.
 >  > Otherwise we finish with zoo of different suites/scenarios in several
 >  > places.
 >  >
 >  > Thanks,
 >  > Stepan.
 >  >
 >  > > Regards,
 >  > > Alexey
 >  > > >
 >  > > > Thanks,
 >  > > > Stepan.
 >  > > >
 >  > > > > Re integration to BTI, this would require fair amount of efforts and
 >  > > > > usage model is not clear to me.
 >  > > > >
 >  > > > > >
 >  > > > > > On 4/15/08, Aleksey Shipilev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >  > > > > > > Hi Tony, all!
 >  > > > > > >
 >  > > > > > > Does it make sense to create special place in our repository for
 >  > > > > > > storing the benchmarks like this one I've used in my performance
 >  > > > > > > researches on Harmony? It would be great to have them 
synchronized in
 >  > > > > > > repos rather than store in JIRA.
 >  > > > > > >
 >  > > > > > > Thanks,
 >  > > > > > > Aleksey.
 >  > > > > > >
 >  > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
 >  > > > > > > > Aleksey,
 >  > > > > > > >  I think keep the benchmark somewhere such as JIRA is also ok.
 >  > > > > > >
 >  > > > > >
 >  > > > > >
 >  > > > > > --
 >  > > > > > Tony Wu
 >  > > > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM
 >  > > > > >
 >  > > > >
 >  > > >
 >  > >
 >  >
 >
 >
 >  --
 >  Best Regards
 >  Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu
 >
 >
 >
 >  China Software Development Lab, IBM
 >



Reply via email to