harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew Zhang" <zhanghuang...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Exception-throwing compatibility question
Date Tue, 04 Jul 2006 07:40:12 GMT
George,

Totally agree with you.

Shall we summarize and document the discuss to Harmony exception-thrown
compatibility guideline?

Thanks!


On 6/30/06, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > For the example I've started this thread with it seems that complying
> > the spec is
> > more appropriate there. But probably there are other examples that
> > caused that the doc was worded the given way
> >
> > George and Tim could you please comment?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
>
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> I love this topic !
>
> FWIW, my gut feel is that we should minimise any disruption to user
> applications that move from RI to Harmony. If the spec says Exception1
> should result and the RI actually throws Exception2 then my preference
> would be for the Harmony code to throw Exception2 (i.e. match the
> runtime behaviour of the RI) and raise the matter in a Sun bug. There is
> always the possibility that it is the method Javadoc that is incorrect.
> If and when the matter gets addressed in the RI so that the spec and the
> behaviour coincide, we make any necessary updates to our code. That way
> we help clarify the spec and keep ourselves consistent with what
> migrating users expect from their Java runtime.
>
> Sure, it is a problem if user application code critically depends on the
> kind of exception thrown from an API call but I would sooner have people
> using Harmony to run their apps with zero/minimal changes required than
> see breakages because Harmony has taken the moral high ground on a spec
> issue.
>
> OK, you can all start throwing rocks at me now :-)
>
> Best regards,
> George
>
>
> >
> >
> > 2006/6/30, Paulex Yang <paulex.yang@gmail.com>:
> >> Anton Avtamonov wrote:
> >> > On 6/30/06, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> But section "Exception-throwing compatibility" says that exceptions
> >> >> are different
> >> >> and we aim "to be fully compartible with the RI" "by matching the
> >> >> exception characteristics of each method".
> >> >
> >> > I believe that it is for "However, in most cases the specification
> >> > does not describe all possible exceptions that may be thrown" case
> >> > only.
> >> > In case the spec is complete and not looks like a bug I would vote to
> >> > follow the spec.
> >> +1 from me.
> >> >
> >> > Wishes,
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paulex Yang
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>


-- 
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message