I agree with Tim. I don't think would should give much, if any, precedence to such efforts. Yes, it's trivial, but this slope is slippery.
-Nathan On Nov 26, 2007 4:25 PM, Zakharov, Vasily M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks, Tim, I see your point. > > I just wonder that if we have a potential problem (that already created > an issue, and could potentially create more), and the thing is easy to > fix - then, though we're not guilty, why don't we fix it? > > Vasily > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [classlib][luni] Compatibility :: EnumSet.elementType field > doesn't exist > > Zakharov, Vasily M wrote: > > I'm trying to run Geronimo Unit Tests 2.0.2 on Harmony, and I've found > > that GUT uses XStream 1.1.3, which addresses > > java.util.EnumSet.elementType field that is package private in RI and > is > > absent in Harmony. > > Yep, it is non-api so just happens to be different in Harmony. > > > Of course, this is a problem in XStream, and moreover it's already > fixed > > there in v1.2.2 (see [1]), however, I think this is a point where we > > could be compatible with RI just in case some other application does > the > > same mistake. > > We are never going to address all the internal implementation > differences, so it is a question as to whether this is 'important > enough' to change the Harmony implementation. > > > Harmony implementation of EnumSet has elementClass field that seems to > > be the equivalent of RI's elementType field. So my suggestion is to > > rename elementClass to elementType and thus become more compatible and > > move GUT v2.0 enabling forward. > > > > I've filed HARMONY-5196 for this problem and attached a simple > renaming > > patch that I suggest to apply. > > > > Are there any objections? > > > > If not, than could someone please commit the patch? > > In this case, I see you have ascertained that XStream have fixed their > invalid reference, and Geronimo has moved up to the fixed version [1], > so I think we should not apply this renaming. I suspect there will be > more cases like this, and we'll have to deal with them one at a time -- > but while other projects are being accommodating and making the 'right' > fix then i think we should go that route. > > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200711.mbox/%3c474 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Regards, > Tim > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Closed Joint Stock Company Intel A/O > Registered legal address: 125252, Moscow, Russian Federation, > Chapayevsky Per, 14. > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >
