Another assertion that the constructor does call "put" in Harmony and doesn't in the RI is only convincing of the fact that the implementation of the RI doesn't use public methods.
Do you have any actual use case that does this? I don't see the practicality of doing this. The HashMap javadoc doesn't guarantee this behavior and the examples for extending Map behavior is to wrap a Map, like in Collections.unmodifiableMap(Map). -Nathan > -----Original Message----- > From: Spark Shen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:20 PM > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [classlib][luni] JIRA 1492 Constructor of HashMap throw > unexpected exception > > Spark Shen 写道: > > Hi : > > Following is the discussion about JIRA 1492, shall we discuss it here? > > > > public class SubMapTest extends TestCase { > > public void testSubclass() { > > HashMap map = new HashMap(); > > map.put("a", "a"); > > SubMap map2 = new SubMap(map); // Harmony will throw an unexpected > > exception here. > > } > > } > > > > class SubMap<K, V> extends HashMap<K, V> { > > > > public V put(K key, V value) { > > throw new RuntimeException(); > > } > > } > > > > > > >Nathan Beyer > > >Harmony's behavior may be different in this case, but I'm not sure I > > would consider this a valid issue. What's a real use case for this > > type of sub-classing? > > [ Show ≫ <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1492> ] > > Nathan Beyer > > <http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=nbeyer> > > [18/Sep/06 08:41 PM] Harmony's behavior may be different in this case, > > but I'm not sure I would consider this a valid issue. What's a real > > use case for this type of sub-classing? > > > > > <http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=spark+shen>>Sp > ark > > Shen > > >What if change the RuntimeException to UnsupportedOperationException? > > [ Show ≫ <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1492> ] > > spark shen > > <http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=spark+shen> > > [18/Sep/06 08:48 PM] What if change the RuntimeException to > > UnsupportedOperationException? > > > > >Alexey Petrenko > > >I'm not sure that this is a valid issue to. > > >As far as I understood the issue is that Harmony calls put method in > > constructor while RI does not. Right? > > > > >If so I do not see any issue here. > > > I can not figure out what RI does. And please refer to JIRA 839, it > reports similar use case. > My point here is > 1. we may not be able to predict how users will use our library. > 2. Users could guess our implementation w/o difficulty, which > contradicts the encapulation priciple. > So I prefer to follow RI on this behavior. > > When changing to UnsupportedOperationException, the use case is more > practical, since it is highly like that put operation is not supported. > But it seems not so practical that this sub-hashMap can not be > instantiated. May be one more assertion can convince you that this is bug. > > public class SubMapTest extends TestCase { > public void testSubclass() { > HashMap map = new HashMap(); > map.put("a", "a"); > SubMap map2 = new SubMap(map); > assertEquals(1, map2.size()); > } > } > > class SubMap<K, V> extends HashMap<K, V> { > public SubMap(Map<? extends K, ? extends V> m) { > super(m); > } > > public V put(K key, V value) { > throw new RuntimeException(); > } > } > > Best regards > > -- > Spark Shen > 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]
