Hi Stepan,
Thanks for raising this. I agree with you that accomplishing the
separate goals of HARMONY-95 and HARMONY-147 would probably be easier if
security was first moved to the new layout (assuming it gets the
blessing of the committers) before auth gets separated out.
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
Stepan Mishura wrote:
George, we are going to extract auth module (see HARMONY-95) and all
platform-specific java code will go into the new module.
To avoid patches conflict will we define a sequence in which we will apply
them? IMHO, it makes sense to adjust to proposed layout first and then to
perform auth module extraction. What do you think?
Thanks,
Stepan Mishura
Intel Middleware Products Division
On 3/1/06, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Hi George
if you restructured the stuff on your computer, could you submit a
patch?
Thanks,
Mikhail
Hi Mikhail,
Yes, it has always been my hope to do so. Given the amount of change
involved, I just wanted to run things by the broader community before
proceeding to open a JIRA on the matter. Your feedback has been very
helpful and I will work towards getting the patch submitted today.
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
2006/2/27, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2006/2/27, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Hi George
actually the native code we have in security should work on both
IA32 and IPF
So, it seems that with your suggestion we will have to have
two copies of that code. Please correct me if I'm wrong
What is about the following str:
+-win/
| |
| +--IA32/
| |
| +--IPF/
| |
| +-- common1.cpp
| |
| +-- common2.cpp
| |
...
Thanks,
Mikhail
Looks good to me. And it's the same story under the "linux" folder ?
Exactly.
Thanks,
Mikhail
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
2006/2/27, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Hi George,
why e.g. 'win.IA32' not just 'win'?
Because there will be a posix.apr that will do the portable part
;-)
Correct me if I am wrong.
...er...well, I'm not sure that it was foremost in my thoughts when
I
was working through the layout changes :-)
I simply wanted to have a way of differentiating between code
written
for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on Intel architecture. I am assuming
that
the Windows code there today is for 32 bit. I did wonder about
splitting
those directory names up so that instead of a folder called "
win.IA32"
we had a "win" folder with a "IA32" sub-folder (and likewise for
Linux).
i.e.
java
|
+-common
|
+-win
| |
| \---IA32
|
+-linux
| |
| \---IA32
|
...
The above approach leaves the way open for other variants (e.g.
64-bit
code) to be added in new sub-folders beneath "win" and "linux". In
the
end I opted for consistency with the "win.IA32" and "linux.IA32"
names
that are currently being used under the trunk/native-src folder in
SVN.
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/2/24, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
Redrawing the proposed layout as it didn't render quite correctly
for me
when I read over the sent note (sigh).
<SECURITY ROOT>
|
|
+---src
| |
| +---main
| | |
| | +---java
| | | |
| | | +---common
| | | |
| | | +---linux.IA32
| | | |
| | | \---win.IA32
| | |
| | +---native
| | | |
| | | +---linux.IA32
| | | |
| | | \---win.IA32
| | |
| | \---resources
| | |
| | \---common
| |
| +---test
| |
| +---java
| |
| +---common
| |
| +---linux.IA32
| |
| \---win.IA32
|
+---doc
| |
| \---images
|
+---make
| |
| \---native
| |
| +---linux
| |
| \---windows
|
+---META-INF
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
Earlier on today I spent some time following the instructions
for
developing Harmony Java code inside Eclipse [1]. After
experimenting
with archive, luni and nio I decided to check out
modules/security and
found that, in its current form, it can't be brought into an
Eclipse
workspace and used like the other modules. One obvious
difference is
that it doesn't have any Eclipse project metadata in there (e.g.
.project and .classpath files). After adding these in (in my
private
workspace), I began to look at other differences between
security and
its peer modules in particular the difference in source layouts.
Recalling some ideas for layouts that have been kicked around
this
list,
I started to move things around a little to try and make things
a
little
more uniform with respect to those peer modules. Things were
made more
interesting by virtue of the following security module
distinctions :
* it has platform-specific Java code
* it contains native code for both Windows and Linux
Eventually I arrived at a structure that is more attuned to the
other
modules in the repository. As a bonus, Eclipse pointed out
several
missing import entries from the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file -
including
one that cannot presently be satisfied with what is in the
Harmony
repository (org.apache.harmony.security.test.SecurityTest wants
to
import java.util.logging.LoggingPermission which doesn't exist
in the
repository - although an implementation has been contributed
[2]).
In addition to moving source around, I also made the necessary
tweaks to
the Ant scripts contained in the security module plus the "top
level"
Java build file trunk/make/build-java.xml so the Ant builds
still work
as before.
Keeping my fingers crossed that the next bit of this note
renders
alright in your mail client, here is the modules/security
structure
that
I ended up with (minus all of the package sub-folders for
clarity) :
<SECURITY ROOT>
|
|
+---src
| |
| +---main
| | |
| | +---java
| | | |
| | | +---common
| | | |
| | | +---linux.IA32
| | | |
| | | \---win.IA32
| | | | | +---native
| | | |
| | | +---linux.IA32
| | | |
| | | \---win.IA32
| | |
| | \---resources
| | |
| | \---common
| | | +---test
| |
| +---java
| |
| +---common
| |
| +---linux.IA32
| |
| \---win.IA32
|
+---doc
| |
| \---images
|
+---make
| |
| \---native
| |
| +---linux
| |
| \---windows
|
+---META-INF
All of the leaf folders under "src" have been declared to
Eclipse as
source folders (i.e. I have 9 source folders called
"src/main/java/common", "src/main/resources/common",
"src/main/native/linux.IA32", "src/test/java/common" and so
on...).
I would be really keen to hear what people think of this
prototype
re-structuring. It would be great if we could make the security
module
as simple to work with inside Eclipse as the other modules are.
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
[1]
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/dev_eclipse.html
[2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-88
--
Thanks,
Stepan Mishura
Intel Middleware Products Division
