[Plplot-devel] Re: STATUS QUESTION

[Alan W. I. <ir...@be...>]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Geoffrey Furnish wrote:

> Alan W. Irwin writes:
>  > STATUS QUESTION:
>  >
>  > So is there anything left on our plates other than the fortran problems that
>  > Joao has found?
>
> Well, uhh, here's a couple of things on my mind.
>
> 1) I'm not really done with the plshade api wrappers for Java.  I just
> did the double with no coord xforms, needed for x15.java.  If you
> implement the other java demos (16 and 18), I'll have some more api
> work to do to get them displaying, and even if not, I kinda need to at
> least do the float prec version of what I did Friday night for one of
> the double cases.  Will /try/ to do this today, but would appreciate
> being allowed to slipstream some changes to javabind.c in later if I
> can't get it done before 8 am tomorrow.  Doubt I'll be hacking from
> home tonight.

I have a conflict of interest here between my interest in seeing more work
done on the Java API and my release/testing manager role.  Also, I am well
aware I put you in the soup by doing so many java template changes late with
perhaps even more to come today.  But I consider java to be "experimental"
until all the API is complete.  Since there is no chance of that happening
for this release, I think that takes all the pressure off to jam in more API
at the last minute before the release.  Also, I would rather have you
configuration debugging on solaris, see below.  Also, while I am testing on
Tuesday and Wednesday my plate will be absolutely full so I would prefer no
distractions. Thus, weighing everything up I would feel most comfortable if
we stick to the Tuesday morning deadline for the soft freeze.  So if you can
do a bit more today on java (after you are happy with solaris configuration)
that would be great, but if not, that is fine as well. That is exactly the
same low-pressure approach I am taking to my own last-minute work on the
example unification today.


>
> 2) I just found that I can't run configure on a slowaris box.  That
> seems significant to me, and I'll be looking into it now.

From your subsequent posts, it sounds like you solved this problem but are
still working on another solaris configuration problem.  I *really*
appreciate this work because it means I am not going to be sandbagged when I
attempt to build and test on the compile farm solaris machine.

Looking forward to your configuration commit.

Alan