harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: matching reference implementation exception behaviour
Date Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:29:43 GMT


George Harley wrote:
> Mark Hindess wrote:
>> As you might have noticed, if you are reading the JIRA messages on the
>> commits list, I've been looking at the error case behaviour of
>> constructors.  (In fact, I've written a Perl script to generate a
>> program to creates several thousand test cases from the constructor
>> specification in a japi file.  I'll probably extend it to test other
>> static methods when I have a spare minute.)
>>
>> I'm wondering how far we should try to match the behaviour of the
>> reference implementation.  For instance, I've been submitting fixes
>> for a number of cases of incorrect exceptions being thrown and I think
>> they are worth fixing, but then I came across this one:
>>
>>   j.io.RandomAccessFile((j.l.String)null,""): # i.e. null filename, 
>> empty mode
>>
>> the RI throws j.l.IllegalArgumentException because it checks the mode
>> first but we throw a NullPointerException because we check the file
>> first.
>>
>> Does it matter?  Should we be matching behaviour?
>>   
> 
> Wasn't this the topic for a fairly recent discussion on the list ? If I 
> can recall correctly, the consensus seemed to be YES it matters and YES 
> we should be matching behaviour.

Yes - if the spec doesn't say anything, and the RI isn't obviously 
broken or stupid, then follow the RI.

If the spec does say something, we need to make a decision - follow the 
spec or follow the RI (and log it...)

geir

> 
> And if that wasn't the consensus then it should have been ;-)
> 
> Best regards,
> George
> 
>> Regards,
>>  Mark.
>>
>> -- 
>> Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>
>> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
>>
>>   
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message