commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject Re: [JCI] GSOC status
Date Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:11:24 GMT
Hi Peter,

Is there a description of what you are working on that has any more 
details than: I 
couldn't find anything else.

Please bear in mind that while I'm a mentor, I actually haven't worked 
on JCI (yet), just Maven, so there's every chance I don't understand how 
it works and you can feel free to tell me I'm wrong :)

Peter Konstantinov wrote:
> Dear JCI developers,
> I'm Google SOC applied student, working on jci. Let's see what I made for
> current 
> moment, fell free to comment and aks questions. 

Is there some code we can see for these?

I'd generally recommend making small, incremental changes through a 
series of small patches. That way you can get your work reviewed (and 
applied!) sooner, and if anything needs changes or it's going in the 
wrong direction, there's less impact.

> Implementation of support file-based compilers in jci is my main task now.
> To example 
> my approach I implicated support of javac (currently call only). I used
> javasist 
> library to replace file-working classes with my proxis. It's seems this
> approch 
> would work fine for every java-based java compiler. Yep, I know that
> javasist is 
> pretty fat and slow, but it's only technological preview, and I hope
> implication 
> would become more satisfactory in future. And of course, unavailability of 
> fork-call, remain main problem of this approach. 

While I think I understand what you are doing here, the original 
assumption was to use the code in Maven as a starting point. Was there a 
reason not to do this? Javac is completely implemented there.

> Support of maven is my second goal. It's pretty simple, and I already
> developed 
> main part of maven plugin. But problem of abstract configuration of
> jci-compilers 
> isn't steal solved. As you know, now every jci-compiler has own
> configuration 
> class, in the other hand we have only one compiler-configuration format in 
> plexys. So, you can see what shall we aim to.

I'm just seeing now that the original description would have been 
misleading - it's not desirable to write a new compiler plugin, but 
instead to integrate commons-jci into the existing one (instead of the 
plexus compiler).

Looking forward to hearing more about your work!


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message