Based on the goal of "being least confusing to users", I'm in favour of matching the behaviour rather than the spec when there is any doubt - users will expect something that runs on reference jre to run on harmony and fail in the same way(s).
Based on the same goal, I also think matching 5.0 behaviour is the correct thing to do. If Harmony is going to be a 5.0 implementation our users will naturally expect things to behave the same way as a 5.0 reference implementation. JIRA issues should have a clear resolution/category to record these decisions - and any discussion on the mailing list should be summarised in the JIRA so that we can refer people to the decision. And so that we can revisit them when, as Geir says, we have achieved world domination. Incidentally, it would be good to have some input on HARMONY-266 and HARMONY-315. (I think Stepan and I are the only ones discussing them and we have opposite views. ;-) See: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200603.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] and: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200604.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Mark. On 4/11/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not too late to think about it once again and probably revisit > the decision. > > As I understand goal #1 is to meet needs of as many potential users as we can > and decision to be spec incompatible in favor of new hot RI version might be > not > the best one. > > Thanks, > Mikhail > > 2006/4/11, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I think that people will steadily move up in versions, and maybe most > > importantly, we *are* trying to build Java SE 5, not J2SE 1.4... > > > > geir > > > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > > BTW, when we were deciding that we follow RI rather then the spec, we > > > cared about breaking existing implementations. But if RI changed its > > > behavior > > > from being compatible to the spec in 1.4 to being incompatible in 1.5 > > > then do > > > we believe that existing applications more likely stick to the latest > > > (1.5) version? > > > > > > Or if the spec is ambiguous and RI changed behavior from 1.4 to 1.5? > > > > > > Example JIRA-266 and "Re: [jira] Created: (HARMONY-266) > > > java.security.Signature.getInstance(String,Provider) should match 5.0 > > > reference implementations behaviour" mail thread. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mikhail > > > > > > > > > 2006/4/11, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> > > >> Paulex Yang wrote: > > >>> Mark > > >>> > > >>> You just point out a serious issue ;-) . The RI is just a concept, in > > >>> fact we have many RIs, Sun's JDK, BEA's JDK, even different versions, > > >>> Sun JDK 1.5.0, 1.5.0.04, 1.5.0.06...(even more in future I expects), and > > >>> on different platforms(win32, linux32, still even more in future)...In > > >>> fact sometimes they have different behavior themselves, it is very > > >>> reasonable that 1.5.06 fix some bugs of 1.5.0, so that some different > > >>> exceptions thrown(more reasonable IAE instead of NPE, for example), or > > >>> more seriously, different results returned... Samples are available upon > > >>> request:). > > >> Actually, there only is one RI for any given spec, and in this case, I > > >> guess we judge it to be the latest version of a spec that comes from > > >> Sun? (The question isn't if it comes from Sun - as the spec lead, they > > >> supply the RI - but rather what version...) > > >> > > >> geir -- Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
