BTW, when we were deciding that we follow RI rather then the spec, we cared about breaking existing implementations. But if RI changed its behavior from being compatible to the spec in 1.4 to being incompatible in 1.5 then do we believe that existing applications more likely stick to the latest (1.5) version?
Or if the spec is ambiguous and RI changed behavior from 1.4 to 1.5? Example JIRA-266 and "Re: [jira] Created: (HARMONY-266) java.security.Signature.getInstance(String,Provider) should match 5.0 reference implementations behaviour" mail thread. Thanks, Mikhail 2006/4/11, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Paulex Yang wrote: > > Mark > > > > You just point out a serious issue ;-) . The RI is just a concept, in > > fact we have many RIs, Sun's JDK, BEA's JDK, even different versions, > > Sun JDK 1.5.0, 1.5.0.04, 1.5.0.06...(even more in future I expects), and > > on different platforms(win32, linux32, still even more in future)...In > > fact sometimes they have different behavior themselves, it is very > > reasonable that 1.5.06 fix some bugs of 1.5.0, so that some different > > exceptions thrown(more reasonable IAE instead of NPE, for example), or > > more seriously, different results returned... Samples are available upon > > request:). > > Actually, there only is one RI for any given spec, and in this case, I > guess we judge it to be the latest version of a spec that comes from > Sun? (The question isn't if it comes from Sun - as the spec lead, they > supply the RI - but rather what version...) > > geir > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
