harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Beyer" <nbe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][lang] AbstractStringBuilder, abstract class?
Date Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:01:45 GMT
Seems like it was just a oversight. I can check in a fix.
-Nathan

On 10/7/06, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/10/7, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>:
> > sounds reasonable, but don't go based on my word, of course.
> >
> > Interesting question is why AbstractStringBuilder isn't abstract...
>
> It does not really matters from implementation POV, and the name was
> just chosen after the RI - sorta be deeply compatible.  But indeed we
> missed abstract modifier, which is also quite reasonable as a
> precaution for undocumented exploitation.
> Let's fix this.
>
>
> >
> > Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > > On 2/23/06, Nathan Beyer <nbeyer@kc.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> An interesting side note: The "Serialized Form" documentation gives away
> > >> an
> > >> implementation detail of StringBuffer and StringBuilder, in that they
> > >> both
> > >> extend from an AbstractStringBuilder. This might be an interesting
> > >> approach
> > >> to consolidate those code paths.
> > >
> > >
> > > Spec lies sometimes? The spec of StringBuilder and StringBuffer claim the
> > > superclass of them is java.lang.Object, but the serialized form tells the
> > > truth - they extend from java.lang.AbstractStringBuilder, which is not
> > > public.
> > >
> > > I picked up this thread again because I found an existing application
> > > failed
> > > against Harmony because of this problem. The scenario is:
> > > 1. application runs on jdk1.1
> > > 2. new instances of some classes. If a class has superclass, then new an
> > > instance of superclass too if it's not abstract or an interface. The
> > > pseudo-code looks like:
> > > newAllInstances(Class clazz) {
> > > if(clazz == null) return;
> > > if (clazz is abstract or an interface) return;
> > > new an instance of clazz;
> > > newAllInstances(clazz.getSuperClass());
> > > }
> > >
> > > The test data includes some instances of StringBuffer. The application
> > > fails
> > > against Harmony because AbstractStringBuilder is a concrete class but not
> > > public. The application runs well against sun jdk 1.5 (Although all code
> > > are
> > > based on jdk1.1) because the superclass is abstract.
> > >
> > > So is it a reason to change the signature of class AbstractStringBuilder?
> > > Make it as abstract really as the name suggests?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> > >> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/serialized-form.html#java.lang.Strin
> > >>
> > >> gBuilder
> > >> [2]
> > >>
> > >> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/serialized-form.html#java.lang.Strin
> > >>
> > >> gBuffer
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Tim Ellison [mailto:t.p.ellison@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:09 PM
> > >> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [jira] Resolved: (HARMONY-103) java.lang.StringBuilder
> > >> Implementation for LUNI
> > >>
> > >> Nathan,
> > >>
> > >> First, let me say a big thank you for the code and tests you submitted.
> > >> I've had a chance to read through it and (beyond the comments below) it
> > >> looks good.
> > >>
> > >> I've committed a modified version of your patch to SVN.  However, ;-)
> > >>
> > >> 1.  I've removed the javadoc comments as these appear to be direct
> > >> copies of the Sun documentation.  We cannot copy Sun's property.  For
> > >> now the comments have been replaced with TODO tags.
> > >>
> > >> 2.  I've removed the .intern() from the string literals, since these
> > >> will be interned by the VM anyway.
> > >>
> > >> 3.  Why have you got transient char[] and int fields, and then serialize
> > >> them (as int, char[])?  Wouldn't it be easier to reorder the fields and
> > >> remove the readObject/writeObject methods?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks again for your work,
> > >> Tim
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Tim Ellison (JIRA) wrote:
> > >> >      [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-103?page=all ]
> > >> >
> > >> > Tim Ellison resolved HARMONY-103:
> > >> > ---------------------------------
> > >> >
> > >> >     Resolution: Fixed
> > >> >
> > >> > Nathan,
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks for the patch, it has been applied (minus javadoc) at repo
> > >> revision
> > >> 379882.
> > >> >
> > >> > Please check that it has been applied as you expected.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >> java.lang.StringBuilder Implementation for LUNI
> > >> >> -----------------------------------------------
> > >> >>
> > >> >>          Key: HARMONY-103
> > >> >>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-103
> > >> >>      Project: Harmony
> > >> >>         Type: New Feature
> > >> >>   Components: Classlib
> > >> >>     Reporter: Nathan Beyer
> > >> >>     Assignee: Tim Ellison
> > >> >>  Attachments: StringBuilder.java, StringBuilderTest.java
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This bug is for submitting an implementation of the
> > >> java.lang.StringBuilder to the LUNI module of classlib. The
> > >> implementation
> > >> and class definition is based on the specification at
> > >> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/StringBuilder.html.
> > >> >> The implementation is not complete, there are a few method that
are
> > >> either incomplete or not implemented. All of these are related to the
> > >> Unicode Code Point support, as defined by Java 5. As for the rest of the
> > >> implementation, there are probably a number of optimization points, but
> > >> the
> > >> focus was to complete the functionality and make it compatible with
> > >> various
> > >> Java 5 runtimes.
> > >> >> Additionally, I had a problem with compiling this class in Eclipse
> > >> 3.1.2.
> > >> When I set the compiler to Java 1.4 compliance level, the methods which
> > >> implement the Appendable interface cause compilation errors. When I set
> > >> the
> > >> compiler to Java 5.0 compliance with Java 1.4 .class file compatability
> > >> and
> > >> Java 1.4 source compatibility, the class compiled fine. I'm not sure if
> > >> this
> > >> is quirk of the JDT compiler or what, but I'm going to do some
> > >> investigation
> > >> and testing to see if I can isolate it.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> > >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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