Robert Lougher wrote:
The word "pragmatic" springs to mind. FWIW, JamVM will print nothing
if no exception is pending. It didn't do this originally -- it blew
up with a SEGV. I changed it because a user reported an application
which didn't work with JamVM but it did with Suns VM (can't remember
which application, it was a long time ago).
This sounds right to me. As a user Id expect a call that prints
exception output to the screen to just print nothing and return if there
is no pending exception.
It's all very well bombing out with an assertion failure, but to the
average end-user it's still the VMs fault, especially if it works with
other runtimes (i.e. Suns).
Exactly - isn't this one of those differences to undocumented RI
behaviour that we should try to match?
Rob.
On 4/5/06, Archie Cobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
Understood -- my point is that "blowing up" and "corrupting internal
data structures" is not something you would do by design.
Agreed. By using assertions you get the best of both worlds.
Assertions are especially useful for detecting badly behaving
JNI native code, which can otherwise result in very hard to
track down errors.
-Archie
__________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Oliver Deakin
IBM United Kingdom Limited
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
