On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Mike Edwards > <mike.edwards.inglen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 01/02/2011 22:53, Raymond Feng wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would rather that we "ignore" the failing test cases with JIRA >>> tickets so that we won't forget to fix it. >> >> Raymond, >> >> On that point, at this stage, I totally disagree. >> >> Fix the function so that it passes the tests BEFORE putting it back in. >> > > +1, I believe this exactly what Raymond said. > >> I will be very disappointed if I find more OASIS conformance tests >> failing... >> >> > > To this matter, if we disable a functionality in the runtime, to > "fake" a conformace test is passing is NO good either. >
Did you two get out of the wrong side of your beds today? The runtime is not "faking" any conformance test passing its doing it quite correctly as per section 2.3.4 of the Java CAA specification. Optimizing remotable calls marked with allows-pass-by-reference is an optional feature and its quite valid to not do any optimization in some/any circumstances. I agree with Mike that its much more important for Tuscany to maintain conformance with the mandatory features of the specs and keep the compliance tests passing. If you want to enhance the allows-pass-by-reference optimization support thats terrific too. ...ant
