Richard Liang wrote:
> Hello Tim,
>
> I have raised Harmony-910[1] for this issue, patch is also available
> :-) Would you please have a look at it. Thanks a lot.
I've had a look at it, but you don't appear to fix the problem described
below...
>> Richard Liang wrote:
<snip>
>> The reason is: In en_UK, a FULL style date formatter is the same as a
>> LONG style date formatter. So the return value of format.toPattern()
>> maybe "{0,date,long}", and according to the spec of
>> MessageFormat.toPattern() "...The string is constructed from internal
>> information and therefore *does not necessarily equal* the previously
>> applied pattern." So I think it's a bug of the test case.
So shouldn't you be removing the assertion that they are equal? It
seems that the suggested patch is relying on a particular implementation
in a given locale, but it still is asserting more than required by the
specification.
Regards,
Tim
--
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]
