Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Date: 18 Jul 2004 04:27:37 -0000
Message-ID: <20040718042737.18620.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org>
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Cc: 
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 29163]  -
    Make StopWatch validate state transitions

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29163>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29163

Make StopWatch validate state transitions


------- Additional Comments From bayard@apache.org  2004-07-18 04:27 -------
The table above represents my thoughts on how Stopwatch should work. Bit crappy
as it means a change in the features of the API. Perhaps stupidly, X means yes,
- means no and ? is unsure.

In addition, getTime would always return the time to now (unless suspended),
while getSplitTime would be used to do splits.

I can see one immediate problem. If in SUSPEND, should still be able to call
stop(). The two ? marks are because I'm not sure if reset() should stop() if the
stopwatch is not stopped yet. If so, then the only state that can't have reset
is UNSTARTED.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org