Alexey: Although it's no big deal, I think is useful to be compatible with the RI in this issue. The RI version is simpler, and doesn't expose the internal representation.
On 11/7/06, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2006/11/7, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 11/7/06, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Guys, > > > > have we agreed on toString compatibility? Our compatibility guideline > > [1] says nothing about compatibility of toString results... > iirc, Geir has asked SUN about toString issue, and we have no problem to > keep the same string as RI's. To avoid unnecessary compatibility problem, > we'd better return the same value, and we also agreed to do this job > lazily. :) Right! Now I recall that thread. Thanks, Andrew. SY, Alexey > I think that we do not *need* to follow the RI in this case. Since > > toString results are not documented and it will be strange to see an > > application which is rely on them. Or we can discuss each case. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > The second question: should we apply the patch from HARMONY-2085 [2] > > which just makes javax.swing.text.html.parser.Element.toString() > > method compatible with RI. > > > > SY, Alexey > > > > [1] > > http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/compat.html > > [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2085 > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew Zhang > >
-- Miguel Montes
