Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 47169 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2003 14:40:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 47154 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2003 14:40:45 -0000 Received: from saturn.opentools.org (HELO www.princetongames.org) (66.250.40.202) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Aug 2003 14:40:45 -0000 Received: from localhost (ammulder@localhost) by www.princetongames.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7GGEPf09722 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:14:25 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: www.princetongames.org: ammulder owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:14:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mulder X-X-Sender: ammulder@www.princetongames.org To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [JSR-88] DFM Patch Take 3 In-Reply-To: <1061044706.1275.156.camel@hydra> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Maas van den Berg wrote: > Hi Aaron, > > Didn't catch that previous thread. Addition of exception squashing > code was the result of running unit tests against the RI of Sun. Well, I saw it earlier, but I've lost it again. I think Jason commented in the "DFM Take 2" thread, but I think Jeremy was the original commenter. > In this case it probably doesn't break anything, but in general > shouldn't our code show identical black-box behavior compared to the RI? IMHO, no. I think it should implement the same API, but I don't think we should feel obligated to duplicate the exact RI implementation details down to the text of exceptions and storing a null factory and so on. Aaron