harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zakharov, Vasily M" <vasily.m.zakha...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [classlib][luni] Compatibility :: EnumSet.elementType field doesn't exist
Date Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:25:48 GMT

Thanks, Tim, I see your point.

I just wonder that if we have a potential problem (that already created
an issue, and could potentially create more), and the thing is easy to
fix - then, though we're not guilty, why don't we fix it?

Vasily


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ellison [mailto:t.p.ellison@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:58 AM
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib][luni] Compatibility :: EnumSet.elementType field
doesn't exist

Zakharov, Vasily M wrote:
> I'm trying to run Geronimo Unit Tests 2.0.2 on Harmony, and I've found
> that GUT uses XStream 1.1.3, which addresses
> java.util.EnumSet.elementType field that is package private in RI and
is
> absent in Harmony.

Yep, it is non-api so just happens to be different in Harmony.

> Of course, this is a problem in XStream, and moreover it's already
fixed
> there in v1.2.2 (see [1]), however, I think this is a point where we
> could be compatible with RI just in case some other application does
the
> same mistake.

We are never going to address all the internal implementation
differences, so it is a question as to whether this is 'important
enough' to change the Harmony implementation.

> Harmony implementation of EnumSet has elementClass field that seems to
> be the equivalent of RI's elementType field. So my suggestion is to
> rename elementClass to elementType and thus become more compatible and
> move GUT v2.0 enabling forward.
> 
> I've filed HARMONY-5196 for this problem and attached a simple
renaming
> patch that I suggest to apply.
> 
> Are there any objections?
> 
> If not, than could someone please commit the patch?

In this case, I see you have ascertained that XStream have fixed their
invalid reference, and Geronimo has moved up to the fixed version [1],
so I think we should not apply this renaming.  I suspect there will be
more cases like this, and we'll have to deal with them one at a time --
but while other projects are being accommodating and making the 'right'
fix then i think we should go that route.

[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200711.mbox/%3c474
B35C0.5090402@earthlink.net%3e

Regards,
Tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Closed Joint Stock Company Intel A/O
Registered legal address: 125252, Moscow, Russian Federation, 
Chapayevsky Per, 14.

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Mime
View raw message