harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Loenko" <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: matching reference implementation exception behaviour
Date Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:10:32 GMT
It's not too late to think about it once again and probably revisit
the decision.

As I understand goal #1 is to meet needs of as many potential users as we can
and decision to be spec incompatible in favor of new hot RI version might be not
the best one.

Thanks,
Mikhail

2006/4/11, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com>:
> I think that people will steadily move up in versions, and maybe most
> importantly, we *are* trying to build Java SE 5, not J2SE 1.4...
>
> geir
>
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> > 2006/4/11, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com>:
> >>
> >> Paulex Yang wrote:
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> You just point out a serious issue ;-) . The RI is just a concept, in
> >>> fact we have many RIs, Sun's JDK, BEA's JDK, even different versions,
> >>> Sun JDK 1.5.0, 1.5.0.04, 1.5.0.06...(even more in future I expects), and
> >>> on different platforms(win32, linux32, still even more in future)...In
> >>> fact sometimes they have different behavior themselves, it is very
> >>> reasonable that 1.5.06 fix some bugs of 1.5.0, so that some different
> >>> exceptions thrown(more reasonable IAE instead of NPE, for example), or
> >>> more seriously, different results returned... Samples are available upon
> >>> request:).
> >> Actually, there only is one RI for any given spec, and in this case, I
> >> guess we judge it to be the latest version of a spec that comes from
> >> Sun? (The question isn't if it comes from Sun - as the spec lead, they
> >> supply the RI - but rather what version...)
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message