Just minor comment: Many times I saw very strange behavior in jdk which I was absolutely sure about: definitely a bug. But then... I found applications which used those strange things!
I hust want to say that it is important to be very careful when deciding what is bug: it is very probable to find an application basing on it (java world is very very huge :) ). -- Anton Avtamonov, Intel Middleware Products Division On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > depending on the bug... > > actually, this is the answer I would give too (which I know is not very > helpful). > > Some apparent 'bugs' are ambiguities in the spec, or a different choice > of under-specified behavior that we likely want to match to ensure > compatibility; others may be deemed implementation bugs that we should > not recreate. > > Sometimes it's a tough call, we should seek consensus on the dev list. > > > I would not like to be compatible with SIGSEGVs :) > > We'll have our own versions ;-) > > Regards, > Tim > > > Thanks, > > Mikhail > > > > On 2/16/06, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 2006/2/16, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> Tests should be written to the javadoc spec, rather than deducing > >>> behavior from any particular implementation. > >> By the way... > >> Do we want to be bug compatible with reference implementation? > >> > >> -- > >> Alexey A. Petrenko > >> Intel Middleware Products Division > >> > > > > -- > > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > IBM Java technology centre, UK. > >
