I agree - that is why I would say that since we are new to the
"Implementation of Java Family", we'd want to mimic the bugs (yes, with
discussion as I'm sure there will be bugs we don't want to mimic...).
The reason is that even if we're right - it's a bug - we're going not be
successful with that argument to Sun, the EG, users, whatever for a while.
We'll need to build up user-base and momentum. Then the story changes...
geir
Anton Avtamonov wrote:
Just minor comment:
Many times I saw very strange behavior in jdk which I was absolutely
sure about: definitely a bug. But then... I found applications which
used those strange things!
I hust want to say that it is important to be very careful when
deciding what is bug: it is very probable to find an application
basing on it (java world is very very huge :) ).
--
Anton Avtamonov,
Intel Middleware Products Division
On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
depending on the bug...
actually, this is the answer I would give too (which I know is not very
helpful).
Some apparent 'bugs' are ambiguities in the spec, or a different choice
of under-specified behavior that we likely want to match to ensure
compatibility; others may be deemed implementation bugs that we should
not recreate.
Sometimes it's a tough call, we should seek consensus on the dev list.
I would not like to be compatible with SIGSEGVs :)
We'll have our own versions ;-)
Regards,
Tim
Thanks,
Mikhail
On 2/16/06, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2006/2/16, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Tests should be written to the javadoc spec, rather than deducing
behavior from any particular implementation.
By the way...
Do we want to be bug compatible with reference implementation?
--
Alexey A. Petrenko
Intel Middleware Products Division
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
