harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Miguel Montes" <miguel.mon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [compatibility] Compatibility guideline and HARMONY-2085
Date Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:34:09 GMT
Alexey:
Although it's no big deal, I think is useful to be compatible with the RI in
this issue.
The RI version is simpler, and doesn't expose the internal representation.

On 11/7/06, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2006/11/7, Andrew Zhang <zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com>:
> > On 11/7/06, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > have we agreed on toString compatibility? Our compatibility guideline
> > > [1] says nothing about compatibility of toString results...
> > iirc, Geir has asked SUN about toString issue, and we have no problem to
> > keep the same string as RI's. To avoid unnecessary compatibility
> problem,
> > we'd better return the same value, and we also agreed to do this job
> > lazily.  :)
> Right! Now I recall that thread.
> Thanks, Andrew.
>
> SY, Alexey
>
> > I think that we do not *need* to follow the RI in this case. Since
> > > toString results are not documented and it will be strange to see an
> > > application which is rely on them. Or we can discuss each case.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > The second question: should we apply the patch from HARMONY-2085 [2]
> > > which just makes javax.swing.text.html.parser.Element.toString()
> > > method compatible with RI.
> > >
> > > SY, Alexey
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/compat.html
> > > [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2085
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew Zhang
> >
> >
>



-- 
Miguel Montes

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