So, you mean it is ok to consider them as non-bug difference and there
is no need to follow RI.
On 12/25/06, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that exception order not so important. And if the order change
will give us performance boost then let's change it!
2006/12/23, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Andrew,
> Thanks for your advice: )
>
> Yes, it is impl detail, but this is one kind of problem. Thus I yelled
> here for getting an agreement to deal with similar problems.
>
> I do incline to follow RI in normal case if possible, but harmony's
> impl is better here.
> I wonder is it worth doing this trade-off?
>
> On 12/23/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/23/06, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > There are two methods, which throw exceptions in different order.
> > >
> > > public test1(int a, int b){
> > > if(a>b){
> > > throw AException();
> > > }
> > > synchronized(obj){
> > > if(blabla){
> > > throw BException();
> > > }
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > public test2(int a, int b){
> > > synchronized(obj){
> > > if(blabla){
> > > throw BException();
> > > }
> > > if(a>b){
> > > throw AException();
> > > }
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > test1 checks the parameters before entering the synchronized block, It
> > > returns immediately instead of waiting for a lock in the condition
> > > which should throw AException. IMHO, test1 is more elegant. The
> > > problem is, if RI do something like the test2 where harmony using
> > > test1, should we follow RI here? What's your opinion?
> >
> >
> > I think it's implementation detail, and I vote for following RI if possible.
> >
> > We may discuss specific case one by one. :)
> >
> > Thanks.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tony Wu
> > > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew Zhang
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Tony Wu
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
--
Tony Wu
China Software Development Lab, IBM
