Note, the returned 'environment' is a Map type, so it's not
Serializable, so Alexey's argument is sound.
On 11/23/06, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hmm...sounds resonable, I'd like to leave it as is if no customer
report that. Thanks Alexey.
On 11/23/06, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not follow why we need serialization compatiblity here?
> The j.l.Builder itself is not serializable, nor a Process
> implementation for obvious reason - I don't think we should care about
> env either.
>
> --
> Alexey
>
> 2006/11/23, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Tony Wu wrote:
> > > I generated the golden file by RI and got the testcase[1] below failed
> > > on Harmony.
> > > In general, we should implement a class whose name/package is
> > > completely same as RI for serialization compatiblity, but the
> > > customized Map is not a public class.(i.e. I'm not able get the class
> > > name from spec.) Is it proper to print the name by getClass.getName()
> > > and follow RI here?
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > public void testSerializationCompatibility() throws Exception {
> > > ProcessBuilder pb = new ProcessBuilder("Arg1", "Arg2", "Arg3");
> > > Map<String, String> env = pb.environment();
> > > SerializationTest.verifyGolden(this, env);
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > IMHO, we shall use the same class name.
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liang
> > China Development Lab, IBM
> >
> >
>
--
Tony Wu
China Software Development Lab, IBM
