On 4/13/06, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/11/06, Mark Hindess wrote: > > > > 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: > > > Mark, as far as there are no other opinions I'd suggest to fix HARMONY-315 > in case of null provider and leave this JIRA issue open for a while. What do > you think?
Sounds like a good plan. Thanks Stepan. Hopefully others will step up with opinions about the other two cases. Regards, Mark. > 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] > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Thanks, > Stepan Mishura > Intel Middleware Products Division > > -- 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]
