hmm...sounds resonable, I'd like to leave it as is if no customer
report that. Thanks Alexey.
On 11/23/06, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do not follow why we need serialization compatiblity here?
The j.l.Builder itself is not serializable, nor a Process
implementation for obvious reason - I don't think we should care about
env either.
--
Alexey
2006/11/23, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Tony Wu wrote:
> > I generated the golden file by RI and got the testcase[1] below failed
> > on Harmony.
> > In general, we should implement a class whose name/package is
> > completely same as RI for serialization compatiblity, but the
> > customized Map is not a public class.(i.e. I'm not able get the class
> > name from spec.) Is it proper to print the name by getClass.getName()
> > and follow RI here?
> >
> > [1]
> > public void testSerializationCompatibility() throws Exception {
> > ProcessBuilder pb = new ProcessBuilder("Arg1", "Arg2", "Arg3");
> > Map<String, String> env = pb.environment();
> > SerializationTest.verifyGolden(this, env);
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> IMHO, we shall use the same class name.
>
> --
> Richard Liang
> China Development Lab, IBM
>
>
--
Tony Wu
China Software Development Lab, IBM
