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 wuyuehao@gmail.com designates
 66.249.82.235 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=hdlmYpYeVT+wu4louFyCotPhROB2ERXa/vI+wfntlxCEmL+TvUGrfMSHzBFc/oHeKlUxp2/kAD56AoSe4J9yEDG2poCUQfdNey1SPhU7f1wfasoKmEUITQOg/y6Z08AnjS9HKQ9NWYzr0wVtEesVCh1ghKjTuFpQs18FWs2TzRM=
Message-ID: <211709bc0612250350v5c5d5899vc410a5c67d474695@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 19:50:20 +0800
From: "Tony Wu" <wuyuehao@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [general]what do you think about this kind of exception order?
In-Reply-To: <c3755b3a0612250233k2d581edchdaf969cf0be337cb@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <211709bc0612220852i5f9e535dkf9a74ab719bb3ece@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4d0b24970612221920l303dee2cua45cc1efa87d13f3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <211709bc0612222103m6eb0bd9bmf8b50c23281786e0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c3755b3a0612250233k2d581edchdaf969cf0be337cb@mail.gmail.com>

So, you mean it is ok to consider them as non-bug difference and there
is no need to follow RI.

On 12/25/06, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that exception order not so important. And if the order change
> will give us performance boost then let's change it!
>
> 2006/12/23, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com>:
> > Hi Andrew,
> > Thanks for your advice: )
> >
> > Yes, it is impl detail, but this is one kind of problem. Thus I yelled
> > here for getting an agreement to deal with similar problems.
> >
> > I do incline to follow RI in normal case if possible, but harmony's
> > impl is better here.
> > I wonder is it worth doing this trade-off?
> >
> > On 12/23/06, Andrew Zhang <zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/23/06, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are two methods, which throw exceptions in different order.
> > > >
> > > > public test1(int a, int b){
> > > >    if(a>b){
> > > >        throw AException();
> > > >    }
> > > >    synchronized(obj){
> > > >       if(blabla){
> > > >           throw BException();
> > > >       }
> > > >   }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > public test2(int a, int b){
> > > >   synchronized(obj){
> > > >       if(blabla){
> > > >           throw BException();
> > > >       }
> > > >       if(a>b){
> > > >           throw AException();
> > > >       }
> > > >   }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > test1 checks the parameters before entering the synchronized block, It
> > > > returns immediately instead of waiting for a lock in the condition
> > > > which should throw AException. IMHO, test1 is more elegant. The
> > > > problem is, if RI do something like the test2 where harmony using
> > > > test1, should we follow RI here? What's your opinion?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it's implementation detail, and I vote for following RI if possible.
> > >
> > > We may discuss specific case one by one. :)
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tony Wu
> > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrew Zhang
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tony Wu
> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >
>


-- 
Tony Wu
China Software Development Lab, IBM