harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Deakin <oliver.dea...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][icu] Bringing ICU level up to 3.8
Date Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:18:27 GMT
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Again, sorry for the late response...
> Oliver Deakin wrote:
>> Further on upgrading to ICU4J 3.8, when I run the text tests I see
>> failures in BidiTest - namely: testCreateLineBidi;
>> testCreateLineBidiInvalid; testGetRunLimit. For the Bidi scenarios in
>> these tests ICU throws IllegalArgumentExceptions due to invalid
>> parameters being passed through, whereas the RI ignores the fact that
>> these parameters are illegal (one of the differences has been discussed
>> previously in [1]). More precisely, the tests [2] and [3] throw
>> exceptions on ICU 3.8 but complete successfully on the RI.
>> I have been in conversation with the Bidi developer and it seems that
>> ICU is keeping in line with the spec while the RI is allowing illegal
>> cases. The developer I have been talking to has asked if I feel these
>> differences should be fixed in ICU, so I thought I would throw this
>> question out to the Harmony community as it will be something that
>> affects the behaviour of our Bidi class if we move to ICU4j 3.8. IMHO it
>> is not a problem to follow the spec and differ from the RI, as ICU
>> currently does, in these invalid cases. Does anyone object to this?
> I think we follow usual procedure here, which is to follow the spec if
> the spec is being more reasonable than the RI, update our tests, and
> list them as non-bug differences in JIRA.

Exactly what I was thinking - these cases all follow the spec correctly, 
while the RI does not. I was planning to raise them as non-bug 
differences when I carried out the changes to move to icu 3.8

> If we find key applications that rely upon the silent-ignore behavior
> then we might change our mind and depart from the spec, considering it a
> de facto update.

Agreed - it seems that the ICU developers would be happy to help us out 
here by making the changes at their end if we had a good enough reason to.


> Regards,
> Tim

Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

View raw message