I mean this should have about the same priority with the toString() conversion task discussed in adjacent thread IMHO.
2006/7/17, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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
-- 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]