harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Beyer" <nbe...@kc.rr.com>
Subject RE: Re: [optimization] Algorithmic tricks
Date Thu, 27 Jul 2006 04:28:52 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikhail Fursov [mailto:mike.fursov@gmail.com]
> On 7/27/06, Alex Blewitt <alex.blewitt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What effect would there be if we were communicating (via RMI) with an
> > implementation of a remote VM that isn't harmony? I.e.,if we have a
> > String "asdfasdfasdf" which hashes to (say) 8 on a Harmony VM, and a
> > remote implementation uses a hash of 12 for the same value, would that
> > cause any problems in an RMI layer? Do we care about such a scenario?
> >
> I do not think this is a problem.
> We can't be serialization-compatible with RI because our classes have a
> different set of private fields and only interfaces are the same.

What class are you referring to? The hash value of a String isn't written
during serialization [1]; the String serialization is actually a somewhat
special form. In most other classes that are serializable though, the hash
value generally isn't part of the serialized form.

The serialized form is part of the public contract and we strive to meet all
parts of the public contract, so if you know of specific cases, please log
some issues about them. There are a few exceptional cases, like TimeZone,
that may be incompatible, but those are not the norm.



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