Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 55889 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2004 12:39:52 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Jan 2004 12:39:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 49718 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jan 2004 12:39:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 49662 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jan 2004 12:39:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 49649 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2004 12:39:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web41702.mail.yahoo.com) (66.218.93.119) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Jan 2004 12:39:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20040121123947.29978.qmail@web41702.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [12.28.220.2] by web41702.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:39:47 PST Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:39:47 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Steitz Subject: Re: [id] UUID sending more code and a question or two To: Jakarta Commons Developers List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --- Tim Reilly wrote: > With that I'll create a bugzilla enhancement to add the UUIDClock and > UUIDSystemClock code for review. UUIDClock has changed to an interface, > UUIDSystemClock uses the System class to get the time, without the thread > and other code to compensate for time resolution issues. The code that > was > in UUIDClock I now have in a class called UUIDThreadClock (having some > issues with the unit tests seeming to hang, I'll send when I can get that > resolved). Sounds good. > > It would be difficult for me to use the C code in the unit tests (but not > impossible I suppose.) I guess the question is .. should the unit tests > have > this / JNI code? I felt it was important to test against the C reference > code in the UUID draft appendix, since any errors in implementation for > this > code can't be fixed easily (the unique contract depends on correctly > implementing the spec.) > That sounds like a PITA and I wonder if we are really thinking about this correctly. Interleaving JNI calls and comparing timestamps will be hard and ultimately inconclusive, IIUC. What exactly did you have in mind here? Phil __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org