harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodrigo Kumpera <kump...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [arch] VM/Classlibrary interface
Date Sat, 28 May 2005 17:37:46 GMT
On 5/28/05, Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org> wrote:
> Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
> > Last time I checked, no one, nether me or you, is developing code agains 
> the
> > TCK, but to a real JVM. And as hard as we may try, sometimes we end with
> > software that depends on unspecified behavior. So it's better try to be 
> "bug
> > compatible" too.
> If you end up with software that depends on unspecified behaviour, then
> it is either
> a) your deliberate decision, then you probably have a very, very good
> reason to tie yourself to the particular revision of the particular
> platform, or
> b) an accidental mistake, then you fix the small bug in your code, feel
> better about the quality of your code, and move on.

I agree with you about the first one, but the second is where the fine line 
between pragmatic and retoric solutions line. It's easy to say 'just fix it 
then', but I hope that Harmony gets more users that a few hackers. 

The TCK is not the silver bullet for compatibility, A software I wrote for 
1.4.0 suddenly got broken on 1.4.1 because of, I don't know, bug fixes or 
subtle changes on behavior of java.nio.

My point is, testing against just the TCK is just not enouth. Testing 
against real applications is where the real value of Harmony can be 
asserted. Most free JVMs already do that and nobody seens to be complaining.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message