Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.182.190 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=U4ukmT6gHq3Dfuae2f3I2ZZwT4/qgGBp4LD8JcEGPwiPXgmR7FNm2D5C59FcoOyworAYKMZdhtiQtcjAUqiXidKhYE91601PQOuQyuLyGM4GUgWKZQakGx3I7luv6jyRVl5tuJgR5Sf2KVIbOQpPnUWNJ47DOgFjkaJFKAIy6oM=
Message-ID: <c3755b3a0611232316w2e5174c2j4759311fe75c5ae@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:16:05 +0300
From: "Alexey Petrenko" <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib] Getting more real JAPI results
In-Reply-To: <906dd82e0611232205y1e042c38nf5152560d38d0715@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <45655DE2.6050407@apache.org> <45657F64.7080800@gmail.com>
	 <906dd82e0611232205y1e042c38nf5152560d38d0715@mail.gmail.com>

2006/11/24, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
> Shoud we change that in org.apache.harmony namespace? These don't
> affect JAPI reports.
I do not see any reason for this.
And did not change org.apache classes in awt module.

SY, Alexey

> org/apache/harmony/auth/internal/kerberos/v5/EncryptedData.java:
>
>         IvParameterSpec initCipherState;
>         switch (etype) {
>             case DES_CBC_CRC:
>                 offset = 12;// confounder(8)+CRC-32 checksum(4)
>                 // copy of original key
>                 initCipherState = new IvParameterSpec(key.getEncoded());
>                 break;
>             case DES_CBC_MD4:
>             case DES_CBC_MD5:
>                 offset = 24;// confounder(8)+ MD4/5 checksum(16)
>                 // all-zero
>                 initCipherState = new IvParameterSpec(new byte[] { 0,
> 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, });
>                 break;
>             default:
>                 throw new RuntimeException();//FIXME not implemented yet
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/11/23, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
> > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > > I propose that we change all those exception into
> > > o.a.h.luni.util.NotImplementeException so that JAPI can pick them up and
> > > show us real results and we do it sooner rather than later.
> >
> > Agreed.  I don't like stubs (unless required for compiling other stuff),
> > but I recognize that some people prefer to define all the stubs then go
> > back and fill them in.
> >
> > I agree that we should mark them as throwing the runtime exception
> > org.apache.harmony.luni.util.NotImplementedException
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> > IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> >
>