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 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:03:19 GMT

LvJimmy,Jing wrote:
> Hi:
>     I think we never dicide that we should follow RI rather than the spec.
> The spec is the first principle we should follow. However if the spec does
> not tell us the detail of an action, then it's the time to follow RI.
>     That is true that RI changes from time to time in every release. :)

The issue is that we definitely want to have programs that run on
Harmony to behave like programs that run on the RI.


Because at first, no one will believe we're right.  When people ask
about a problem, they won't accept the answer that "well, that's how the
spec says..." if they can get Sun, IBM and BEA's implementations to do
something different.

Of course, once we achieve world dominance, we can revisit this :)


> 2006/4/11, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
>> BTW, when we were deciding that we follow RI rather then the spec, we
>> cared about breaking existing implementations. But if RI changed its
>> behavior
>> from being compatible to the spec in 1.4 to being incompatible in 1.5 then
>> do
>> we believe that existing applications more likely stick to the latest
>> (1.5) version?
>> Or if the spec is ambiguous and RI changed behavior from 1.4 to 1.5?
>> Example JIRA-266 and "Re: [jira] Created: (HARMONY-266)
>> java.security.Signature.getInstance(String,Provider) should match 5.0
>> reference implementations behaviour" mail thread.
>> Thanks,
>> Mikhail
> Best Regards!
> Jimmy, Jing Lv
> China Software Development Lab, IBM

Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org

View raw message