BTW, the problem is reproducible on the recently released 6.0 JRE too.
The same "less that 1".
Regards,
2006/12/14, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 12/14/06, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That one? If you are talking about the problem mentioned in your
> initial message
Sorry... we've agreed that the behaviour of SerialBlob.position(byte[],
long) is a bug in another thread. Yes, "This one" means the initial message
-- getByte(long, int) method. But seldom people reponsed this thread to
regard it as a bug. :)
> > public void testGetBytesJI1() throws Exception {
> > > byte[] buf = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 };
> > > SerialBlob serialBlob = new SerialBlob(buf);
> > > byte [] data = serialBlob.getBytes(2, 1);
> > > assertEquals(1, data.length);
> > > assertEquals(2, data[0]);
> > > }
> > > throws SerialException with message "Invalid arguments: position
> cannot be
> > > less that 1".
>
> then +1 from me for following the spec since I don't understand RI's
> behavior at all. Please note that even the exception message itself
> contains typos :)
LOL, I just noticed "less that 1"...
Regards,
>
> 2006/12/13, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > How about this one? It seems a bug of RI too.
> >
> > Any comments? Thanks!
> >
> > On 12/11/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks,
> > > SerialBlob spec points out that getBytes(long position, int length)
> should
> > > throw SerialException if the given starting position is out of bounds.
> But
> > > RI also throws SerialException when the position is in the bound of
> the
> > > array in some other cases. Consider following code:
> > >
> > > public void testGetBytesJI1() throws Exception {
> > > byte[] buf = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 };
> > > SerialBlob serialBlob = new SerialBlob(buf);
> > > byte [] data = serialBlob.getBytes(2, 1);
> > > assertEquals(1, data.length);
> > > assertEquals(2, data[0]);
> > > }
> > >
> > > IMO, the starting position 2 and the length 1 are both valid. But RI
> > > throws SerialException with message "Invalid arguments: position
> cannot be
> > > less that 1". Is it a bug of RI? Or did I missing something? Any
> > > suggestions? Thanks in advance!
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel ESSD
