The getMethods case is very different as the spec clearly allowed the
behavior. Here the spec and method name are also clear on the expected
behavior. The proposal would make the behavior out of line with the method
name and of no earthly use to users. ie, as a user of that method, I would
never be calling it for any reason other than to remove all the trailing
zeroes.
Mostly the JDK team gets it right. But not this time.
Stephen
On 8 Feb 2013 20:32, "Joe Darcy" <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hello,
On 2/6/2013 11:32 PM, Bruce Chapman wrote:
Stephen, In your case(s) would the workaround fail to work if the bug
was fixed?
Working around a bug is quite different to taking advantage of the
buggy behaviour. If fixing the bug would break code that works around it
that can be seen as a problem, while breaking code that relies on the bug
is IMHO much less of an issue since anyone that does that is taking a known
risk, or a risk that should reasonably be expected to be known.
I am finding it hard to imagine a genuine attempt at a workaround that
would not still work (though redundantly) if the bug was fixed.
Also bear in mind that there are other implementations, and the
signature and the javadoc are the spec. If you find behaviour that differs
and take advantage of that behaviour then you are opening the possibility
of it changing if either: you run with another implementation, or the bug
gets fixed.
While it is easy to contrive an example that would break if this bug
were fixed, and it is possible (on the grounds that I cannot prove it is
impossible) that some real code might break, it is hard to imagine a
scenario where the author/owner of that broken code has any morally
legitimate grounds for complaint in that case.
I guess if you take the "This is one of those unfortunate cases where a
bug can become a feature." approach to its logical conclusion then no bugs
get fixed because there are no bugs, just a nice online list of newly
discovered unexpected features.
As noted earlier in this thread, we use a nuanced compatibility policy
in evolving the JDK:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/OpenJdkDevGuide/OpenJdkDevelopersGuide.v0.777.html
In particular, besides looking after source and binary compatibility, we
also look to manage behavioral compatibility, that is, to be mindful of
changing what a method does at runtime when called, even when the
specification gives us leeway to do so.
Let me relate an example of behavioral compatibility from JDK 7. The
method Class.getMethods returns an array of Method objects for the Class
and in part its javadoc has long stated:
"The elements in the array returned are not sorted and are not in
any particular order."
Therefore, any caller of Class.getMethods relying on or assuming a
particular order has a bug according to the specification. As a
side-effect of permgen removal in JDK 7, the long-standing (and mostly
stable) order of Method objects returned by HotSpot changed. As expected,
some user applications and tests "broke" after this change went in. We
received requests to "fix" the ordering of Class.getMethods, which we
declined to do given the benefits of permgen removal and the clear
specification that no ordering should be relied upon. Even though that
change in getMethods is allowed by specification, it is out-of-bounds of
what we would do an an update release but in-bounds for a platform release
like JDK 7.
The reason for this conservatism is because we value keeping the broad
usage of the JDK working :-)
Getting back to BigDecimal.stripTrailingZeros, we cannot inspect all
usages of this method today, nor can we inspect all the future usages of
BigDecimal.stripTrailingZeros that will be around before JDK 8 is adopted
for the code in question. We know not everyone migrates to a new JDK
release promptly; within the past two years I fielded a query/complaint
about the behavior change in BigDecimal.toString made between 1.4.2 and JDK
5 and later.
For these sorts of reasons, the default resolution when the
specification and implementation conflict is to make the specification
match the implementation. There are exceptions to this default. Given
sufficient evidence that changing the behavior of
BigDecimal.stripTrailingZeros would not have adverse consequences on
fielded code, we could change its behavior despite being implemented that
way for about 9 years.
-Joe
Bruce
On 7/02/2013 12:16 p.m., Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 5 February 2013 09:09, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com> wrote:
This is one of those unfortunate cases where a bug can become a
feature.
I *really* don't see how.
The method name is absolutely clear about its purpose. "Strip trailing
zeros". Anyone relying on it not stripping zeroes for zero needs their
head examining.
This particular one just happens to be one that I've run across twice
and in both cases it required a workaround. I'd argue that there are
more people with undiscovered bugs in their code because the method is
buggy than people who would break were the method fixed.
What bothers me even more is the desire expressed in this thread to
simply wish away bugs by redefining the documentation. If the method
name is clear enough, like in this case, then its a bug, and a
documentation change simply isn't the right solution.
Stephen
