2006/11/24, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
So they are implemented :)
And that specific messages are "not implemented"?
exactly :)
2006/11/24, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'll try to answer according to my understanding of your question :)
>
> these are abstract classes that have some non-abstract methods. These
> methods throw specific exception with specific messages on RI. We do
> the same
>
> 2006/11/24, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'm sorry but I completely don't understand what you mean
> >
> > 2006/11/24, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > 2006/11/24, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > why not what?
> > > > current behavior should be preserved because it corresponds to RI
> > > Some methods there are not implemented too?
> > >
> > > > 2006/11/24, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > 2006/11/24, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > > x-net should also not be replaced with
o.a.h.luni.util.NotImplementeException:
> > > > > > it throws just what RI throws
> > > > > Why not?
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'll take a look at sound
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Mikhail
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2006/11/24, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > > > Shoud we change that in org.apache.harmony namespace? These don't
> > > > > > > affect JAPI reports.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > org/apache/harmony/auth/internal/kerberos/v5/EncryptedData.java:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IvParameterSpec initCipherState;
> > > > > > > switch (etype) {
> > > > > > > case DES_CBC_CRC:
> > > > > > > offset = 12;// confounder(8)+CRC-32 checksum(4)
> > > > > > > // copy of original key
> > > > > > > initCipherState = new
IvParameterSpec(key.getEncoded());
> > > > > > > break;
> > > > > > > case DES_CBC_MD4:
> > > > > > > case DES_CBC_MD5:
> > > > > > > offset = 24;// confounder(8)+ MD4/5 checksum(16)
> > > > > > > // all-zero
> > > > > > > initCipherState = new IvParameterSpec(new byte[] {
0,
> > > > > > > 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, });
> > > > > > > break;
> > > > > > > default:
> > > > > > > throw new RuntimeException();//FIXME not
implemented yet
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Mikhail
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2006/11/23, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > > > > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I propose that we change all those exception into
> > > > > > > > > o.a.h.luni.util.NotImplementeException so that JAPI can pick
them up and
> > > > > > > > > show us real results and we do it sooner rather than later.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agreed. I don't like stubs (unless required for compiling
other stuff),
> > > > > > > > but I recognize that some people prefer to define all the stubs
then go
> > > > > > > > back and fill them in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree that we should mark them as throwing the runtime
exception
> > > > > > > > org.apache.harmony.luni.util.NotImplementedException
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Tim
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > > > > > > > IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
