On 27 November 2006 at 14:30, "Oleg Khaschansky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's a moot question ... GPF-ing is unacceptable known behavior. > I am not sure if we should guarantee the correct behavior in case of > invalid system configuration, missing libraries, etc. Should we?
I don't think we should guarantee correct behaviour, but: 1) The system configuration in this case is actually valid/normal 2) We can and should raise a more appropriate error message[0] Regards, Mark. [0] Just think how much more quickly this issue would have been resolved if even a vaguely helpful error was returned when I first mentioned this back in early October. > On 11/24/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oleg Khaschansky wrote: > > > Do you suggest to introduce the error handling for all the wrappers or > > > only for this one? If for all, do you think if it will affect the > > > performance? > > > > That's a moot question ... GPF-ing is unacceptable known behavior. > > > > > The only place is that native code :) I need some time to find out if > > > it is possible to get the tool which generated it to harmony. > > > > That's ok, I was just respecting the source file comment. Since we have > > what we have in harmony I'll edit it directly. > > > > Regards, > > Tim > > > > -- > > > > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > IBM Java technology centre, UK. > > >
