On 07/07/06, Magnusson, Geir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If people are relying on one implementation that's undocumented > behaviour, then it's bad code. It may well fail on any other system > (inc. embedded systems, or other OS, or even between different > versions). No kidding. Welcome to the real world :) People do all sorts of stupid things.
Yup, I've done a few myself ...
1) We are asking Sun about this, so it's clear we're bringing it up as an issue to them.
Yes, and if Sun give the OK then there's no issue.
2) We try to get it from the RI via black-box, and if we can't, we can't and use our best judgement.
Providing Sun don't have problems, I'd say that's fine. If they do, then it might be less desirable.
> I say that we follow the spec, and if the spec doesn't list an > explicit format, we use our own. If it is amazingly obvious (e.g. a > Point may be printed (1,2)) and it happens to correspond with the Sun > RI, then great, but we shouldn't be striving to be the same in all > cases. So if we are satisfied that it doesn't put us at risk from defense-of-cleanroom perspective, do you still have a problem if we at least try?
If we're satisfied that there's no problems, then like I said, there's no problems if it's the same as the RI. Maybe we should pick this thread up again when Sun get back to you regarding the toString() and exception messages, and in the meantime, only follow what's in the JavaDoc/spec? Alex. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
