harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Varlamov" <alexey.v.varla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][kernel] Should we be compatible with RI ThreadGroup bug?
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:19:38 GMT
BTW, bug evaluation suggests that implementation may be fixed at
"beginning of the Java SE 7 cycle" - one more argument to follow spec.
So I vote for applying the H-1625 patch, all the more it fixes several
other issues in the test.

2006/10/17, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com>:
> Joshua Bloch said, "thread groups are largely obsolete.","Avoid thread groups!"
> I think it is not necessary to fullly comply with RI here ;-)
>
> On 10/17/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As everyone keeps silence, I'd suggest to change implementation to be bug
> > compatible with RI.
> >
> > On 10/15/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/14/06, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Elena Semukhina wrote:
> > > > > Classlib test ThreadGroupTest.test_setMaxPriorityI() fails on DRLVM
> > > > because
> > > > > it expects behaviour that conflicts with specification.
> > > > > The test passes on IBM VME and RI. The issue is reported at
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1625 .
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually there is a bug report in
> > > > > http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4708197 which
> > > > agreed
> > > > > that
> > > > > this is a bug in RI and it should be fixed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we follow RI's behaviour and change drlvm ThreadGroup.java
or
> > > > should
> > > > > we fix the test?
> > > >
> > > > I'm off-line at the moment so cannot look at the bug details.  The
> > > > question is whether fixing the 'bug' will likely break any applications?
> > >
> > >
> > > This question was discussed in Sun's bug report as well. A JCK test
> > > detected this bug. The first evaluation stated that "This is relatively
> > > obscure functionality and it's theoretically possible at that changing the
> > > behavior will break running apps." The second evaluation suggested to
> > > fix the implementation rather than change the spec. The bug is in progress
> > > since 2002...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Tim
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Elena
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Elena
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Tony Wu
> 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


Mime
View raw message