From geronimo-dev-return-3728-apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Wed Sep 17 11:52:25 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 40401 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2003 11:52:25 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Sep 2003 11:52:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 91450 invoked by uid 500); 17 Sep 2003 11:52:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 91389 invoked by uid 500); 17 Sep 2003 11:52:10 -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 91245 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2003 11:52:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail03.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net) (159.134.118.19) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Sep 2003 11:52:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 51170 messnum 210501 invoked from network[194.125.185.142/unknown]); 17 Sep 2003 11:52:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dehora.net) (194.125.185.142) by mail03.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 51170) with SMTP; 17 Sep 2003 11:52:07 -0000 Message-ID: <3F684AE6.6090105@dehora.net> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:52:06 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bill_de_h=D3ra?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Status: JavaMail API implementation now at Alpha quality References: <5ABCCF5E-E887-11D7-B8F8-000393DB559A@coredevelopers.net> <01ba01c37c9b$b63f6950$95e9b5d1@saussure> <3F682821.5050003@dehora.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Adrian Jackson wrote: > Trying to stay bug compatible with a reference implementation is a > nightmare: it's like trying to write code that conforms to a spec you're > not allowed to see that changes from version to version without > notification. Interop and platform neutrality is a nightmare sometimes. If the last resort is bug compatability so be it, but it is a last resort. > I guess the real question that our theoretical friends haven't been > addressing is whether the implementation of the equals() method is > actually something of any real practical importance. Possibly not. Thrashing out a working approach for cases like these is though. I expect this class of issue will arise a number of times as Geronimo is developed. The problem always with systems is that each individual case and compromise is often not of practical importance but the collection of all cases and compromises makes for a sort of cancer. > Although some > notoriously stupid bugs have been perpetuated by a refusal to fix them > and potentially break code that relies on the bug in the first place > (Java bug 4030718 springs to mind as an example). My favorite example: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17021 :) Bill de hÓra