Hi I did the algorithm proposed there. For me it is ok if we can find a simpler one, as long as all tests proposed pass.
Anyway, I'll check why it is failing. regards, Leonardo Uribe 2010/2/4 Curtiss Howard <curtiss.how...@gmail.com> > Hi, > > Our testers are currently running against Sun's CTS tests and the > relative ordering algorithm in > FacesConfigurator.sortRelativeOrderingList() is failing on a rather > simple case: > > A after B > B before C > C before A > > The expected faces-config ordering is B-C-A, but instead > sortRelativeOrderingList() is detecting a circularity. > > I've looked at the code, and it seems like a very complicated > algorithm that attempts to sort the list elements in-place using > weighting. Honestly I'm not even sure where to begin modifying that > code. > > Looking through the history, I can't determine who the original author > is, so if you're reading this, please let me know your thoughts. I'd > like to fix this problem, but instead I'd prefer to rewrite it using a > simpler and more reliable algorithm, which involves creating a tree > out of the "before/after" rules and using a bottom-up level order > traversal to trim duplicate nodes and finally reversing the resulting > list. Circularities can also be detected in the same pass. Is that a > less efficient algorithm? Most likely, but I'd argue its simplicity > and reliability, coupled with the fact that the data set should always > stay fairly small (after all, how many faces-configs can someone > possible use in an application...) would make up for that. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > > > Curtiss Howard >
