But Harmony provides more info... Anyway if we agreed to be compatible with RI in toString messages we should do this. So thanks for you patch :)
SY, Alexey 2006/11/7, Miguel Montes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Alexey: Although it's no big deal, I think is useful to be compatible with the RI in this issue. The RI version is simpler, and doesn't expose the internal representation. On 11/7/06, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2006/11/7, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 11/7/06, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > have we agreed on toString compatibility? Our compatibility guideline > > > [1] says nothing about compatibility of toString results... > > iirc, Geir has asked SUN about toString issue, and we have no problem to > > keep the same string as RI's. To avoid unnecessary compatibility > problem, > > we'd better return the same value, and we also agreed to do this job > > lazily. :) > Right! Now I recall that thread. > Thanks, Andrew. > > SY, Alexey > > > I think that we do not *need* to follow the RI in this case. Since > > > toString results are not documented and it will be strange to see an > > > application which is rely on them. Or we can discuss each case. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > The second question: should we apply the patch from HARMONY-2085 [2] > > > which just makes javax.swing.text.html.parser.Element.toString() > > > method compatible with RI. > > > > > > SY, Alexey > > > > > > [1] > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/compat.html > > > [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2085 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrew Zhang > > > > > -- Miguel Montes
