Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of senakafdo@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.142.185 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=MZyzE4OPJYv1fUMKm0N1t8Tq5x8vmLOK71OKr+Dzc+m4OVpN+WeX7ucVP/LsM1Gmep
         BPYNwO2iIF0jfevK3UrxPEI9oSjF6ruZ1zT7KG/XYCaO8KiBKEX5d0GMf5p3duzXv1n0
         VfqcFXEnb2uEaK1/eVc1DLKBtBvkie6VQyyHs=
Message-ID: <8812c4670807270953p1c72f20lfe3c1b11a92cabc7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:23:56 +0530
From: "Senaka Fernando" <senakafdo@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: Fixing HARMONY-1187 is a matter of decision
In-Reply-To: <3b3f27c60807270915o6570517dwf26b49f721c20422@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_28632_437428.1217177636350"
References: <8812c4670807270332p5d008584l79afdf4bbd4aeb52@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3b3f27c60807270915o6570517dwf26b49f721c20422@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_28632_437428.1217177636350
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:

> Just so I understand, you're saying that an instance of URLConnection is
> assumed to be a JarURLConnection and in some cases it's not. I don't know
> that there's much to decide. If the API says URLConnection and there's no
> documentation/comment/assertion to indicate that is MUST be a
> JarURLConnection, then the code needs to be patched to support this
> condition. It's probably just some quickly written code that no one came
> back to.
>
> Do you have a suggested patch for fixing the class?


I'm working on it.

My suggestion is simple. If we come across an exception situation,
back-trace and use the default implementation. As the issue explains, RI
handles this, in some manner (they probably use a different approach) and
does not throw an exception, so if we are to throw an exception which might
sound logical and more explanatory we would still be differing from RI.
Therefore, unfortunately in order to not have a difference, we will need to
internally handle the exception and use the default behaviour, this might
sound a hack in some way.

What do you think?

Regards,
Senaka

------=_Part_28632_437428.1217177636350--