> Can you figure out what their order is? If so, I'd use that since we > are free to do what we want, and if someone does depende on this, it's > one less change, and it's spec compliant.
I would say it is in the definition order but some methods are placed in the begining of the list by no reason. Example of such methods: public static void main() public static Test suite() The only thing I can say with confidence - the order doesn't change from invocation to invocation.
+1. Do our best to comply with spec and follow RI :)
Yeah, probably a good idea. Any volunteers? :) 2006/7/13, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 7/13/06, Magnusson, Geir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:19 AM > > To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances > > > > > That our "not in any particular > > > order" is different than the "not in any particular order" > > that the RI > > > does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all is > > > correct. > > > > Right, from the spec point of view everything is correct. But I'd > > like to say that our particular order differs from RI particular order > > (and such behavior conforms to spec). My next statement is: there are > > stupid apps that rely on the particular order > > returned by RI (regardless of spec). I know one already. The question > > is: should we care or not? > > > > Can you figure out what their order is? If so, I'd use that since we > are free to do what we want, and if someone does depende on this, it's > one less change, and it's spec compliant. +1. Do our best to comply with spec and follow RI :) Geir > > > > > > 2006/7/13, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I assume you mean [drlvm], since java.lang.Class in > > [classlib] is just a > > > stub, right? > > > > > > Anyway, what would you say exactly? That our "not in any particular > > > order" is different than the "not in any particular order" > > that the RI > > > does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all is > > > correct. > > > > > > geir > > > > > > Alexei Zakharov wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have discovered we have small incompatibility in our > > java.lang.Class > > > > implementation. The order of elements returned by > > > > Class.getDeclaredMethods() differs from RI. The spec says > > here: "The > > > > elements in the array returned are not sorted and are not in any > > > > particular order." But I already know one application > > that relies on > > > > this - this was one of java.beans test (already patched). > > I don't want > > > > to say this is somehow bad but still like to inform the community > > > > about this issue. Probably we need to rise non-bug > > differences JIRA? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > -- > > Alexei Zakharov, > > Intel Middleware Product Division
-- 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]
