Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 46431 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2006 10:16:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2006 10:16:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 29010 invoked by uid 500); 22 Feb 2006 10:16:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 28954 invoked by uid 500); 22 Feb 2006 10:16:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 28940 invoked by uid 99); 22 Feb 2006 10:16:08 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:16:08 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of anton.avtamonov@gmail.com designates 64.233.162.195 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.162.195] (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.195) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:16:07 -0800 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i11so1466960nzi for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:15:47 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=H9LwyqxsBCod0Ulcr74S0jh27odFZzL7+3+iS/MSOeR9H2OGQeZJ4zl4rSazgY0OOQMe/RkAj/H3KEQsX4nCMi8Vwk0R58wyScn6Tg1Dw54Z07STob8nMlzr8bEEHbh2FDiIiOcYxYFkIMuig+jRTo62fTaOq5Q7FDcpXfFDRGw= Received: by 10.65.242.3 with SMTP id u3mr2023838qbr; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:15:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.250.9 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:15:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <46d21a9a0602220215q452659a1x363ad81fa8a0ee5f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:15:46 +0300 From: "Anton Avtamonov" To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: bug-to-bug compatibility - another issue In-Reply-To: <43FC376E.9050108@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <43FC23A5.4020904@gmail.com> <46d21a9a0602220133o6fa7ad3bpf85c15a9169aab77@mail.gmail.com> <43FC376E.9050108@gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 2/22/06, Paulex Yang wrote: > This paragraph is just what I want to say about the bug compatibility, > my idea is: > 1. we should comply with spec > 2. if RI is contradict with spec, and RI is not logical(sometimes it is > very obvious, you know what I mean), we comply with RI; else, we discuss > it case by case. > 3. if spec is not so clear, we should comply with RI > 4. if some application failing on that different behavior, we discuss it > case by case and +1 from me :-). IMHO, excellent guideline. Bugs can be both in the spec and in the RI impl. For all non-trivial cases logic and discussion here in mailing list should help us to decide what to comply. -- Anton Avtamonov, Intel Middleware Products Division