On 10/8/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I commited a change. The class is now abstract. Please verify that is
solves the issue.
Thank you Nathan, it works fine now!
Would someone mind posting a JIRA issue with an additional test for
StringBuffer and StringBuilder.
-Nathan
On 10/7/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems like it was just a oversight. I can check in a fix.
> -Nathan
>
> On 10/7/06, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2006/10/7, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > sounds reasonable, but don't go based on my word, of course.
> > >
> > > Interesting question is why AbstractStringBuilder isn't abstract...
> >
> > It does not really matters from implementation POV, and the name was
> > just chosen after the RI - sorta be deeply compatible. But indeed we
> > missed abstract modifier, which is also quite reasonable as a
> > precaution for undocumented exploitation.
> > Let's fix this.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > > > On 2/23/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> An interesting side note: The "Serialized Form" documentation
gives away
> > > >> an
> > > >> implementation detail of StringBuffer and StringBuilder, in that
they
> > > >> both
> > > >> extend from an AbstractStringBuilder. This might be an
interesting
> > > >> approach
> > > >> to consolidate those code paths.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Spec lies sometimes? The spec of StringBuilder and StringBuffer
claim the
> > > > superclass of them is java.lang.Object, but the serialized form
tells the
> > > > truth - they extend from java.lang.AbstractStringBuilder, which is
not
> > > > public.
> > > >
> > > > I picked up this thread again because I found an existing
application
> > > > failed
> > > > against Harmony because of this problem. The scenario is:
> > > > 1. application runs on jdk1.1
> > > > 2. new instances of some classes. If a class has superclass, then
new an
> > > > instance of superclass too if it's not abstract or an interface.
The
> > > > pseudo-code looks like:
> > > > newAllInstances(Class clazz) {
> > > > if(clazz == null) return;
> > > > if (clazz is abstract or an interface) return;
> > > > new an instance of clazz;
> > > > newAllInstances(clazz.getSuperClass());
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > The test data includes some instances of StringBuffer. The
application
> > > > fails
> > > > against Harmony because AbstractStringBuilder is a concrete class
but not
> > > > public. The application runs well against sun jdk 1.5 (Although
all code
> > > > are
> > > > based on jdk1.1) because the superclass is abstract.
> > > >
> > > > So is it a reason to change the signature of class
AbstractStringBuilder?
> > > > Make it as abstract really as the name suggests?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> > > >>
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/serialized-form.html#java.lang.Strin
> > > >>
> > > >> gBuilder
> > > >> [2]
> > > >>
> > > >>
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/serialized-form.html#java.lang.Strin
> > > >>
> > > >> gBuffer
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:09 PM
> > > >> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: [jira] Resolved: (HARMONY-103)
java.lang.StringBuilder
> > > >> Implementation for LUNI
> > > >>
> > > >> Nathan,
> > > >>
> > > >> First, let me say a big thank you for the code and tests you
submitted.
> > > >> I've had a chance to read through it and (beyond the comments
below) it
> > > >> looks good.
> > > >>
> > > >> I've committed a modified version of your patch to SVN. However,
;-)
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. I've removed the javadoc comments as these appear to be
direct
> > > >> copies of the Sun documentation. We cannot copy Sun's
property. For
> > > >> now the comments have been replaced with TODO tags.
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. I've removed the .intern() from the string literals, since
these
> > > >> will be interned by the VM anyway.
> > > >>
> > > >> 3. Why have you got transient char[] and int fields, and then
serialize
> > > >> them (as int, char[])? Wouldn't it be easier to reorder the
fields and
> > > >> remove the readObject/writeObject methods?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks again for your work,
> > > >> Tim
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Tim Ellison (JIRA) wrote:
> > > >> > [
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-103?page=all ]
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Tim Ellison resolved HARMONY-103:
> > > >> > ---------------------------------
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Resolution: Fixed
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Nathan,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks for the patch, it has been applied (minus javadoc) at
repo
> > > >> revision
> > > >> 379882.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please check that it has been applied as you expected.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> java.lang.StringBuilder Implementation for LUNI
> > > >> >> -----------------------------------------------
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Key: HARMONY-103
> > > >> >> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-103
> > > >> >> Project: Harmony
> > > >> >> Type: New Feature
> > > >> >> Components: Classlib
> > > >> >> Reporter: Nathan Beyer
> > > >> >> Assignee: Tim Ellison
> > > >> >> Attachments: StringBuilder.java, StringBuilderTest.java
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> This bug is for submitting an implementation of the
> > > >> java.lang.StringBuilder to the LUNI module of classlib. The
> > > >> implementation
> > > >> and class definition is based on the specification at
> > > >>
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/StringBuilder.html.
> > > >> >> The implementation is not complete, there are a few method
that are
> > > >> either incomplete or not implemented. All of these are related to
the
> > > >> Unicode Code Point support, as defined by Java 5. As for the rest
of the
> > > >> implementation, there are probably a number of optimization
points, but
> > > >> the
> > > >> focus was to complete the functionality and make it compatible
with
> > > >> various
> > > >> Java 5 runtimes.
> > > >> >> Additionally, I had a problem with compiling this class in
Eclipse
> > > >> 3.1.2.
> > > >> When I set the compiler to Java 1.4 compliance level, the methods
which
> > > >> implement the Appendable interface cause compilation errors. When
I set
> > > >> the
> > > >> compiler to Java 5.0 compliance with Java 1.4 .class file
compatability
> > > >> and
> > > >> Java 1.4 source compatibility, the class compiled fine. I'm not
sure if
> > > >> this
> > > >> is quirk of the JDT compiler or what, but I'm going to do some
> > > >> investigation
> > > >> and testing to see if I can isolate it.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> 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]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
--
Best regards,
Andrew Zhang
