Probably this method is overridden by subclasses, there are similar examples
in the classlib it's a normal practice
2006/6/16, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Alexei, it would be good if you point to a simple test that shows
> difference in behavior, quote the spec and describe, why you think
> Harmony does things right.
The spec says about persistence delegates: "The PersistenceDelegate
class takes the responsibility for expressing the state of an instance
of a given class in terms of the methods in the class's public API".
I don't like to worry the collective mind with details of black-box
testing methology I use here. This is not so important. The important
thing is the result: it seems RI version of StringPersistenceDelegate
looks something like that:
class StringPersistenceDelegate extends PersistenceDelegate {
...
// Should be the main method of the persistence delegate.
// Should return the internal representation of the given
// java.lang.String object as a sequence of atmoic actions.
protected Expression instantiate(Object obj, Encoder encoder) {
return null;
}
}
I don't belive this implementation really "express state of"
java.lang.String instance. However, the target XML produced by
XMLEncoder - the final result of all this activity - shows that
strings are handled correctly by RI. I suppose they move String
handling logic to some other place.
2006/6/15, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sure we need to test protected methods and fields. Moreover we need
> to test private methods either via API or by other means.
>
> Alexei, it would be good if you point to a simple test that shows
> difference in behavior, quote the spec and describe, why you think
> Harmony does things right.
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/6/14, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> > > BTW, all questionable methods of PersistenceDelegate interface are
> > > protected rather than public. Do we need to test it at all?
> > >
> > Hello Alexei,
> >
> > IMHO, we need to test the protected methods, which are also part of API.
> >
> > > 2006/6/14, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >> Mikhail, Tim,
> > >>
> > >> > I suggest that you raise a few examples here.
> > >>
> > >> The first example that comes to my mind is the RI's implementation of
> > >> PersistenceDelegate for java.lang.String class. (Persistence delegate
> > >> is a class that manages persistence details of his target class and is
> > >> used by java.beans.XMLEncoder). RI's imeplementation just does nothing
> > >> and returns null there applicable. It seems that RI guys simply
> > >> created a stub class they do not actually use. Most likely they
> > >> embedded String-handling logic in some other place in code. IMHO such
> > >> a decision doesn't fully correspond the idea of persistence delegates
> > >> as a place for persistence-handling logic.
> > >>
> > >> BTW, our StringPersistenceDelegateTest (point 2 in my classification)
> > >> also expects some non-stub behavior from StringPersistenceDelegate. It
> > >> seems that people who have created this test also don't like this
> > >> aspect of the RI's implementation. :)
> > >>
> > >> 2006/6/14, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >> > Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> > >> > > Hello to everyone,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I am currently investigating tests for java.beans module.
> > >> >
> > >> > Great.
> > >> >
> > >> > > As far as I
> > >> > > understand there were two separate contributions of java.beans tests
> > >> > > from two different parties. And these contributions were merged into
> > >> > > the single combined test suite we have now in svn. As a result
> > >> > > currently we have about 400 test case failures (excluded) out of
> > >> > > approximately 1200. After spending some time on this I realize
> > >> that we
> > >> > > have two types of issues here:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 1. Test checks the compliance with very deep detail of RI's
> > >> behavior (that
> > >> > > is not in spec).
> > >> > > 2. Test expects the behavior that differs from the RI's behavior
> > >> as well as
> > >> > > from our implementation's behavior.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > As for point 1, I'm unsure here. Do we really need to be completely
> > >> > > identical to the RI in terms of public methods behavior? Some RI
> > >> > > decisions are strange.
> > >> >
> > >> > We need to work the same (possibly unspecified) way as the reference
> > >> > implementation to ensure compatibility for Java apps. An example of
> > >> > some areas we already thought about are listed here [1].
> > >> >
> > >> > If the decision is strange so that you think it is bug then we may
> > >> > choose to depart from the RI's behavior after discussion on this list,
> > >> > but if it is wrong because you disagree with the approach, then I'm
> > >> > afraid that compatibility wins <g>. I suggest that you raise a few
> > >> > examples here.
> > >> >
> > >> > > For point 2, I believe we should rewrite or delete such tests.
> > >> >
> > >> > Agreed -- please indicate with your JIRA patch why you think they are
> > >> > wrong, and that will help people review you rewrite/deletion request.
> > >> >
> > >> > > Thoughts, suggestions?
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm happy that you are looking into this, and look forward to your
> > >> patches!
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> > Tim
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Alexei Zakharov,
> > >> Intel Middleware Product Division
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liang
> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
>
>
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Middleware Product Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
