Please excuse the slightly wrong code-level errors in the sample below. The <a></a> needs to be the root level for it to make sense... I am sure you get the message any way.
Cheers Niclas On Thursday 29 July 2004 14:58, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Gang, > > Since I am digging in Framework, I also stumbled upon another problem. > Either it is a semantic bug in the intentions, or a bug in the > ConfigurationUtils.equals() method. > > The problem is highlighted in an added testcase, which now fails in > Framework implementation. > > It goes something like this; > > The two configurations > Configuration a = > <a> > <b>1</b> > <b>2</b> > </a> > > and > > Configuration b = > <a> > <b>2</b> > <b>1</b> > </a> > > then > a.equals( b ) --> TRUE > > It is not specified in the Javadocs of Configuration, but it is said in > Javadocs of DefaultConfiguration that getChild( String element ), will > return the FIRST child. > > SO; > String v1 = a.getChild( "b" ).getValue(); > String v2 = b.getChild( "b" ).getValue(); > return v1.equals( v2 ); > > evaluates to FALSE !!!! > In which case the two Configurations can NOT be considered equal. > > I can imagine this is quite a headache, and the only way out as I see it, > is that Configurations must be same in order of its children as well, to be > considered equal. > > Furthermore, the current equals() implementation is very slow for large > configurations, as it does at worst O(n!) iterations through the tree. > > What are we going to do about this? > > > Cheers > Niclas -- +------//-------------------+ / http://www.bali.ac / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +------//-------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
