On 4/25/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anton Avtamonov wrote: > > Tim, that is excellent! Thank you. > > > > I have couple of minor questions: > > > > Am I right with interpretation that the primary "source" is the spec > > rather than RI behavior? If the spec is consistent and logical, but > > contradicts to the RI behavior we are basing on spec? I'm asking just > > because that caused lots of debates last time and I want to make sure > > everyone agreed with this statement now. > > That's what I thought we agreed. If the guide does not make that clear > then I am happy to clarify.
Guidelines clearly mentioned that. I could not recall if everyone was agree or not :-). As I remember there were lots of people who proposed to base on RI behavior only (to be as much comatible as possible). Personally I'm completely agree with guidelines approach. > > > Another minor comment regarding to the serialization compatibility: > > What if serialization form is not specified and the spec states that > > serialization form will not be compatible with future releases? Does > > it mean we want to copy the existing serialization form? Or we are > > going to define our own? Should it be reflected in the guidelines? > > I suggest that we copy the current RI form (if we can deduce it > honestly) to get better interoperability. +1. -- Anton Avtamonov, Intel Middleware Products Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
