By the way, people what do you think about HARMONY-1110?
Problem is we have to reproduce behavior of pattern parser without specification. There is only one example in Java doc which doesn't allow understand when pattern is incorrect. 2006/9/5, Denis Kishenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Boris thank you for your question. I asked myself the same question and choose the same answer as you. Unfortunately as people wrote above we were wrong and they are reasonable. I have already written patch for HARMONY-1120 to follow RI behavior. 2006/9/5, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 9/4/06, Boris Kuznetsov wrote: > > > > Usually Harmony behavior is compared with RI behavior. But in security > > area RI behavior depends on provider. With different providers RI > > behave differently. > > > > For example, RI passes incorrect method arguments to provider. In such > > cases provider may throw exception (e.g. DigestException or > > IllegalArgumentException) or some RuntimeException (e.g. > > ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException) may be thrown during the execution. > > Here is example. > > > > There are number of methods with arguments like (byte[] buf, int > > offset, int len). RI doesn't check if offset and len are negative but > > Harmony does, so we have difference in behavior (see Harmony-1120, > > 1148): on combination RI + provider application gets provider specific > > exception, but on Harmony + provider - IllegalArgumentException (as in > > other invalid parameters cases). > > > > So we have two options: > > 1. Fix Harmony (remove negative parameters checks) > > 2. Don't fix. Throw IllegalArgumentException for invalid parameters. > > Document as non-bug difference from RI. > > > Hi, Boris. > > We agreed to be exceptions-compatible with RI so we would have chosen the > first option. But I think that the first option is not suitable. I'll try to > explain why. I have a look at MessageDigest.java and mentioned JIRAs: so > there are 4 cases when parameters are invalid and an implementation has to > check if: > 1) buf - is null > 2) offset < 0 > 3) len < 0 > 4) offset + len > buf's len > > The first option means that we have to remove 2 and 3 checks. And leave 1 > and 4 as RI does. But 4 check is meaningless without 2 and 3. IOW, it is > only valid if offset and len params are correct. IMO chosing the first > option is copying inconsistent behaviour. So I vote for the second option. > > Thanks, > Stepan. > > Note, specification doesn't describe implementation behavior for > > invalid arguments, but RI also throws IllegalArgumentException if > > ofsset+len > buf.length. So throwing of IllegalArgumentException in > > Harmony can't break any application. > > > > I suggest option 2. > > Thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Boris > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Denis M. Kishenko Intel Middleware Products Division
-- Denis M. Kishenko Intel Middleware Products Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
