Re: GNU Classpath and JDK1.0 completeness and compatibility

[Andrew John Hughes]

On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 21:53, Roman Kennke wrote:
> Am Mo, den 12.07.2004 schrieb Thomas Fitzsimmons um 20:25:
> > On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 13:37, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > > Hi list,
> > > 
> > > In one of the last threads on this list there was a discussion about
> > > which JDK spec GNU Classpath should have as a goal for its 1.0 release.
> > > I will not answer it here (altough it seemed that most people see 1.4 as
> > > a reasonable goal).
> > > 
> > > To concentrate efforts and to provide a basis for future development I
> > > think it is reasonable to start with spec JDK1.0, complete this and then
> > > concentrate on 1.1 and so on. Sure, there are some incompatibilities and
> > > inconsistencies when going this way, in these cases I propose to make a
> > > compromise in favour of the newer spec.
> > > 
> > > I have put together a checklist against JDK 1.0:
> > > 
> > > http://ontographics.com/classpath/status-1.0.html
> > > 
> > > I am starting now to manually audit all classes listed there with the
> > > criteria listed on this page in mind. I'll start with documentation,
> > > then check for implementations of the specified classes and public
> > > methods and then write missing tests and/or fix failing tests. Of course
> > > everybody is invited to join these efforts. :)
> > > 
> > 
> > This is hugely useful.  Once you're done the AWT audit, I will write
> > documentation and tests to fill in the missing bits.
> 
> Ok. I'll notify you.
> 
> > While the Acunia Visual Test Suite is excellent for testing general
> > functionality, it doesn't really test API conformance.  For API-level
> > testing, we need a new AWT test suite that contains minimal test cases
> > and detailed instructions for how to run each one.  I think we should
> > write a test suite like this as part of the JDK 1.0 effort.
> 
> This will be the difficult part. I hope we can test lots of
> functionality without having something displayed. Hmm.
> 
> BTW: I think I have completed the check list and have started to audit
> java.lang:
> http://ontographics.com/classpath/status-1.0.html
> 
> looks very good so far :)
> 
> Cheers,
> /Roman
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Classpath mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath

FWIW, and you may already know this, nearly all the errors thrown up by
japi for 1.0 (i.e. the binary compatibility) are differences between
this and later versions (e.g. final/non-final, etc.).  It's worth
checking stuff like this against the docs for Sun's 1.4.2 to see if they
implement the same change.  As I recall, I only found the fields in font
to truly differ from 1.0 and Classpath (and the visibility of these
still seems a little dumb to me).
I think this is a great idea on the whole, and should give a better idea
of how well Classpath matches the Java APIs.  If you want others to help
out (myself included), perhaps it might be best to tell us which order
you intend to tackle the packages, and then others can elect to take
some on too.

Cheers,
-- 
Andrew :-)
 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
 
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics' respond those who don't want to learn.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part