DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23159>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23159 [collections][PATCH] makes code easier to understand ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-09-15 13:44 ------- I agree with your analysis and am similarly awaiting enlightenment on why the current behavior exists. I did not update the javadoc, since the contract of get, as you mention above, is hard to specify clearly with the current code. I expect that others will agree that the notify -> notifyAll change in add makes sense. Then the "incorrect" check in testBlockedGetWithAdd() can be removed and the other tests that you mention can be added. I would go ahead and patch the test (assuming the add notify -> notifyAll change). In any case, all of the scenarios that you describe should be tested. The superclasses could also use some tests ;-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
