IMHO since even BEA VM behave differently in this case we may qualify
this as a low-priority task, rise non-bug JIRA and postpone it until
we meet the real-world app that relies on this. Do nothing is better
than do something that we aren't really sure we should do. :)
Regards,
2006/7/17, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Vladimir Gorr wrote:
> In this case I'd like to understand what behaviour is correct
> and what should be made to satisfy the users. I have no any preference.
>
Hello Vladimir,
I think all of us agree that it's possible to following RI's behavior,
Right? The question is we shall decide to follow or not. Any suggestion?
Thanks a lot.
Best regards,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Vladimir.
>
>
> On 7/14/06, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> --
>> Alexei Zakharov,
>> Intel Middleware Product Division
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
--
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]
