harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Zakharov" <alexei.zakha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:51:40 GMT
> > Can you figure out what their order is?  If so, I'd use that since we
> > are free to do what we want, and if someone does depende on this, it's
> > one less change, and it's spec compliant.

I would say it is in the definition order but some methods are placed
in the begining of the list by no reason. Example of such methods:
public static void main()
public static Test suite()
The only thing I can say with confidence - the order doesn't change
from invocation to invocation.

> +1.  Do our best to comply with spec and follow RI :)

Yeah, probably a good idea. Any volunteers? :)


2006/7/13, Andrew Zhang <zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com>:
> On 7/13/06, Magnusson, Geir <geir.magnusson@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:alexei.zakharov@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:19 AM
> > > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; geir@pobox.com
> > > Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
> > >
> > > >  That our "not in any particular
> > > > order" is different than the "not in any particular order"
> > > that the RI
> > > > does?  I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all is
> > > > correct.
> > >
> > > Right, from the spec point of view everything is correct.  But I'd
> > > like to say that our particular order differs from RI particular order
> > > (and such behavior conforms to spec). My next statement is: there are
> > > stupid apps that rely on the particular order
> > > returned by RI (regardless of spec). I know one already. The question
> > > is: should we care or not?
> > >
> >
> > Can you figure out what their order is?  If so, I'd use that since we
> > are free to do what we want, and if someone does depende on this, it's
> > one less change, and it's spec compliant.
>
>
> +1.  Do our best to comply with spec and follow RI :)
>
> Geir
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 2006/7/13, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com>:
> > > > I assume you mean [drlvm], since java.lang.Class in
> > > [classlib] is just a
> > > > stub, right?
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, what would you say exactly?  That our "not in any particular
> > > > order" is different than the "not in any particular order"
> > > that the RI
> > > > does?  I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all is
> > > > correct.
> > > >
> > > > geir
> > > >
> > > > Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have discovered we have small incompatibility in our
> > > java.lang.Class
> > > > > implementation. The order of elements returned by
> > > > > Class.getDeclaredMethods() differs from RI. The spec says
> > > here: "The
> > > > > elements in the array returned are not sorted and are not in any
> > > > > particular order." But I already know one application
> > > that relies on
> > > > > this - this was one of java.beans test (already patched).
> > > I don't want
> > > > > to say this is somehow bad but still like to inform the community
> > > > > about this issue. Probably we need to rise non-bug
> > > differences JIRA?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexei Zakharov,
> > > Intel Middleware Product Division

-- 
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Middleware Product Division

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