Alexei, it would be good if you point to a simple test that shows
difference in behavior, quote the spec and describe, why you think
Harmony does things right.
The spec says about persistence delegates: "The PersistenceDelegate
class takes the responsibility for expressing the state of an instance
of a given class in terms of the methods in the class's public API".
I don't like to worry the collective mind with details of black-box
testing methology I use here. This is not so important. The important
thing is the result: it seems RI version of StringPersistenceDelegate
looks something like that:
class StringPersistenceDelegate extends PersistenceDelegate {
...
// Should be the main method of the persistence delegate.
// Should return the internal representation of the given
// java.lang.String object as a sequence of atmoic actions.
protected Expression instantiate(Object obj, Encoder encoder) {
return null;
}
}
I don't belive this implementation really "express state of"
java.lang.String instance. However, the target XML produced by
XMLEncoder - the final result of all this activity - shows that
strings are handled correctly by RI. I suppose they move String
handling logic to some other place.
2006/6/15, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sure we need to test protected methods and fields. Moreover we need
to test private methods either via API or by other means.
Alexei, it would be good if you point to a simple test that shows
difference in behavior, quote the spec and describe, why you think
Harmony does things right.
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/6/14, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> > BTW, all questionable methods of PersistenceDelegate interface are
> > protected rather than public. Do we need to test it at all?
> >
> Hello Alexei,
>
> IMHO, we need to test the protected methods, which are also part of API.
>
> > 2006/6/14, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> Mikhail, Tim,
> >>
> >> > I suggest that you raise a few examples here.
> >>
> >> The first example that comes to my mind is the RI's implementation of
> >> PersistenceDelegate for java.lang.String class. (Persistence delegate
> >> is a class that manages persistence details of his target class and is
> >> used by java.beans.XMLEncoder). RI's imeplementation just does nothing
> >> and returns null there applicable. It seems that RI guys simply
> >> created a stub class they do not actually use. Most likely they
> >> embedded String-handling logic in some other place in code. IMHO such
> >> a decision doesn't fully correspond the idea of persistence delegates
> >> as a place for persistence-handling logic.
> >>
> >> BTW, our StringPersistenceDelegateTest (point 2 in my classification)
> >> also expects some non-stub behavior from StringPersistenceDelegate. It
> >> seems that people who have created this test also don't like this
> >> aspect of the RI's implementation. :)
> >>
> >> 2006/6/14, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> >> > > Hello to everyone,
> >> > >
> >> > > I am currently investigating tests for java.beans module.
> >> >
> >> > Great.
> >> >
> >> > > As far as I
> >> > > understand there were two separate contributions of java.beans tests
> >> > > from two different parties. And these contributions were merged into
> >> > > the single combined test suite we have now in svn. As a result
> >> > > currently we have about 400 test case failures (excluded) out of
> >> > > approximately 1200. After spending some time on this I realize
> >> that we
> >> > > have two types of issues here:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Test checks the compliance with very deep detail of RI's
> >> behavior (that
> >> > > is not in spec).
> >> > > 2. Test expects the behavior that differs from the RI's behavior
> >> as well as
> >> > > from our implementation's behavior.
> >> > >
> >> > > As for point 1, I'm unsure here. Do we really need to be completely
> >> > > identical to the RI in terms of public methods behavior? Some RI
> >> > > decisions are strange.
> >> >
> >> > We need to work the same (possibly unspecified) way as the reference
> >> > implementation to ensure compatibility for Java apps. An example of
> >> > some areas we already thought about are listed here [1].
> >> >
> >> > If the decision is strange so that you think it is bug then we may
> >> > choose to depart from the RI's behavior after discussion on this list,
> >> > but if it is wrong because you disagree with the approach, then I'm
> >> > afraid that compatibility wins <g>. I suggest that you raise a few
> >> > examples here.
> >> >
> >> > > For point 2, I believe we should rewrite or delete such tests.
> >> >
> >> > Agreed -- please indicate with your JIRA patch why you think they are
> >> > wrong, and that will help people review you rewrite/deletion request.
> >> >
> >> > > Thoughts, suggestions?
> >> >
> >> > I'm happy that you are looking into this, and look forward to your
> >> patches!
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Tim
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alexei Zakharov,
> >> Intel Middleware Product Division
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liang
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Middleware Product Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
