Talk:Apache Harmony

Duplicated text

This text: "In 2011-10-29 a vote was started by the project lead Tim Ellison whether to retire the project. The outcome was 20:2 in favor[4], and the project was retired on November 16, 2011[5]." is duplicated in two places, which one should be deleted? -- Dougher (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Decision to rewrite from scratch

Why did they make such a decision? Sounds stupid from where I'm standing. This quote was originally embedded into the article as a <!-- comment --> by Marudubshinki with regards to Apache Harmony's decision to wait for code donations instead of working out some kind of license agreement to use code from GNU Classpath. As it is a question/statement raised with regards to the content of the article, it has been moved to this talk page as comments are more for letting other editors know something specific about the way an article is organized and such instead of for relaying messages. -- Remy Suen 20:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See Toward a free Java - the online article about the making that decission (several articles under same link, scroll downvard).

What is Apache Harmony?

In the article, it is stated that Apache Harmony is a proposed free implementation of the Java programming language. I don't feel that this is an accurate representation of what the project is. Isn't Harmony an implementation of the Java platform itself with the VM and class libraries included? I'm not sure off-hand as to whether Harmony includes a compiler, but if they did, I think they are just using ECJ, last I checked. Nonetheless, is it accurate to say that it is an implementation of a "programming language"? -- Remy Suen 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Transparency

I think that saying that most of the developement process is not transparent is not completely true. It is true that this project received a lot of contributions from various companies, but it seems that all (or a lot of) the decisions are discussed on the mailing list. There are more that 1000 entries per month !! Hervegirod 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea was to say, the code writing is not transparent. The discussion part is.

Tone

This article (while I agree with the criticisms it makes of the Harmony project) does not have a sufficiently neutral tone, in my opinion. A section for discussing the rift between the Harmony and GNU Classpath groups is fine, but having the entire article be slanted against Harmony is inappropriate. Casey Marshall 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But also: I neglected to read previous changes, apparently contributed by Geir; I think we'd all appreciate it if GNU Classpath AND Harmony developers refrained from editing this article, as it looks like it is difficult for any of us to control our tempers here. Casey Marshall 22:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a proposed rewrite, not quite finished yet: User:Casey Marshall/Apache Harmony. Any comments? I knew I said we should refrain, but I'm trying to be fair in that article. Casey Marshall 05:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I like that, and I think the proposed criticism section is neutral enough. Plus I really don't like the current Developement team section. I don't understand what's the point from "Sometimes the software companies..." until the end. Hervegirod 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not support the idea to rewrite the article and think that it reflects the reality correctly. It is written that Harmony have received the large code donations, written that API coverage is over 90 percent, written that non trivial applications are shown being running and that it was presented in JavaONE conference. I think, a lot of the positve information is included. It is also written that Harmony is still behind GNU Classpath, but the reasons of writing this are documented with references - and I also do not know if this is a serious criticism at all as Harmony is just much younger. And the trolling and flamebaits in mailing lists, mentioned in the new version, were all posted after it was absolutely obvious that the it will not be any shared development in the foreseenable future - all question was just to switch into another project or not. However I think that the team section may be rewritten or even deleted, as it contains a lot on material without the supporting references. Audrius Meskauskas 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

The thing I find objectionable about the article is that the comparison to GNU Classpath is not restricted to one section. The discussion of Harmony's development status should not contain the constant comparisons to Classpath that it does. All of the substantive information about Classpath with respect to Harmony was made in the history section; having it appear elsewhere makes it seem like Harmony is in some kind of competition or race with Classpath. Even if this were the case, an encyclopedic article should not need such things. Korval 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apache Harmony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070421103127/http://blogs.sun.com:80/ontherecord/ to http://blogs.sun.com/ontherecord/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)