harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][beans] Current java6 bean implementation does not persist some class properly [was: There are some JDK 6 feature not implemented]
Date Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:59:55 GMT
Yang Paulex wrote:
> 2007/7/5, Alexei Zakharov <alexei.zakharov@gmail.com>:
>>> But I think the persistent delegate mechanism are very similar
>>> with serialization, on which we need to be compatible with other
>>> Java SE implementation, so it makes sense to make them the API
>>> tests which pass on RI. Did I miss
>> something?
>>
>> Yes, we need to be compatible with other implementations when we are
>> talking about public API. We also should be able to read files
>> produced by XMLEncoders from other implementations and do our best to
>> make sure our XMLEncoder produces valid artifacts that can be red by
>> other XMLDecoders.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> At the same time I don't see any problems with having implementation
>> specific tests. They  check the behavior of our persistence delegates
>> directly via calling their protected methods and without dealing with
>> complex logic of (XML)Encoder / (XML)Decoder. And they won't pass on
>> RI at least because RI uses other class names for its persistence
>> delegates. My understanding is that we should not try to enable these
>> tests on RI since IMO this kind of efforts could be treated as a
>> reverse engineering of internal RI classes.
> 
> Agreed, sorry if I made confusion here, my point is API tests is necessary
> especially on compatibility, and of course if the implementation specific
> test can help to improve the coverage and then Harmony implementation
> quality, there's no reason not to welcome :).
> 
>> On the other hand, we can test persistence delegates logic indirectly
>> using (XML)Encoder / (XML)Decoder. And we have a lot of this kind of
>> tests in XMLEncoderTest and XMLDecoderTest. These tests are API tests
>> indeed and IMO should be enabled on RI as well as on Harmony.
> 
> Glad to hear this, thanks

Cool -- sounds like we were vehemently agreeing ;-)

Regards,
Tim


Mime
View raw message