What I'm trying to convey is: 1) We should be doing spec-driven development, not development based on probing the behavior of any particular implementation of the spec (even the RI).
I believe this is in best keeping with the spirit of Sun's intent for independent implementations of Java. 2) Since we know from experience that the spec leaves many questions unanswered, we should use the RI of the spec to resolve those questions using the public published interfaces to the RI. Typically this will mean running a test, written to public APIs, and observing the result. 3) Compatibility with existing implementations is very important to us, therefore we will run our tests written based on the spec against both our implementation and the RI (and possibly other implementations) to ensure we behave in the established way. Where there are anomalies or inconsistencies in the way the spec describes how things should work, how they work in the RI, or how they work in accepted implementations, then we discuss, decide, and document the chosen solution for Harmony. Regards, Tim Anton Avtamonov wrote: > On 4/25/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Anton Avtamonov wrote: >>> 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. >> The problem is that in the real world, we're going to have trouble >> defending why everyone else is wrong, and we are correct. >> >> This is why I'd like to discuss and be able to go w/ RI behavior, and in >> either case, WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN so that for diversions from the RI we >> can make it easy for users to see why their code breaks on Harmony when >> it runs everywhere else and for diversions from spec, we can eventually >> come back after some time when we have achieved World Dominance(tm) and >> fix them... > > I see I was right that we didn't have an agreement :-) > > Geir, I completely understood you point and even agree with you. My > idea (and I believe Tim's guidelines support it) was to avoid copying > of definite RI bugs. Just because I believe that there are no (or > almost no) applications which are based on something which is > definitely bug, not feature. > > However your proposal just to be as good as RI does for now, 'mark' > all problems and revise them later definitely makes sense. > > Let's say I'm neutral and wait for others opinions. > > I'm sure that this is very key question and we have to achieve an > agreement here. > > Wishes, > -- > 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] > > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
