Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Vladimir wrote:
(I believe Alexey used it to test. *Or J9 nevertheless*? IMHO it
needs to
specify when same discussions start).
I have tried both. And both differ from RI.
Richard wrote:
For getDeclaredMethods(), J9 has the same behavior as RI.
Well, there are some nuances nevertheless. I have wrote a small test
(that was close to my orginal test) and ran it on four different VMs.
The test simply does TestBean.class.getDeclaredMethods() and prints
the resulting array.
Alexei,
Good catch! I have not tested polymorphism. :-[
Richard
TestBean.java:
class TestBean {
String methodCalled = null;
public void method(Integer i) {
methodCalled = "method1";
}
public void method(int i) {
methodCalled = "method2";
}
public void method(boolean b) {
methodCalled = "method3";
}
public void method(Boolean b) {
methodCalled = "method4";
}
}
The results:
RI (Sun 1.5.0_05)
method int
method boolean
method java.lang.Boolean
method java.lang.Integer
j9 v3
method java.lang.Integer
method int
method boolean
method java.lang.Boolean
DLRVM
method java.lang.Integer
method int
method boolean
method java.lang.Boolean
jrockit-R26.3.0-jdk1.5.0_06
method java.lang.Boolean
method boolean
method int
method java.lang.Integer
With Best Regards,
2006/7/14, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Alexey Varlamov wrote:
>
>> 2006/7/14, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> Magnusson, Geir wrote:
>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:19 AM
>>>>> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That our "not in any particular
>>>>>> order" is different than the "not in any particular order"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> that the RI
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like
all is
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Right, from the spec point of view everything is correct. But I'd
>>>>> like to say that our particular order differs from RI
particular order
>>>>> (and such behavior conforms to spec). My next statement is:
there are
>>>>> stupid apps that rely on the particular order
>>>>> returned by RI (regardless of spec). I know one already. The
question
>>>>> is: should we care or not?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Can you figure out what their order is? If so, I'd use that
since we
>>>> are free to do what we want, and if someone does depende on
this, it's
>>>> one less change, and it's spec compliant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As well as I know, the order is what the methods are declared in
java
>>> source. (Cannot find any document currently ;-) )
>>>
>> IIRC, Sun and JRockit behave differently to this matter, JRockit's VM
>> reports methods in reversed order. Besides, there are 2 APIs:
>> getDeclaredMethods() and getMethods() - we should consider both if we
>> really care. And detecting "right" order for the last is tedious -
>> taking into account variety of heritable methods (declared directly,
>> inherited from superclass(es), inherited from superinterface(s),
>> inherited from superinterfaces of superclasses).
>>
>
> What does j9 do?
>
>
For getDeclaredMethods(), J9 has the same behavior as RI. For
getMethods, J9 and RI behave differently. ;-) But it's not so hard
to summarize RI's rule of method order. Am I wrong?
Best regards,
Richard
>> I believe we need a bit stronger motivation for scratching this
issue,
>> than a blunt testcase - some real-world application.
>>
>
>
> I agree that this isn't a critical issue, but a "nice to have". Maybe
> we see what J9 does, and follow the majority (if we spend the
time...)?
>
> geir
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
--
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]
