In message 4b02c37a.2020...@gmail.com, Tim Ellison writes:
On 17/Nov/2009 03:50, Nathan Beyer wrote:
2009/11/16 Alexei Fedotov alexei.fedo...@gmail.com:
Funny. We don't have a requirement that a committer have to test the
code before committing it here [1].
I suppose some things are
Hello Jesse,
Your link points to Google code which I cannot probably browse due to
ACQ restrictions. Anyway, I guess from your message that Google for
the sake of user friendliness added messages to NPE exceptions, thus
changing the exception order. I accept usability motivation for
proposed wiki
2009/11/18 Alexei Fedotov alexei.fedo...@gmail.com:
Hello Jesse,
Your link points to Google code which I cannot probably browse due to
ACQ restrictions.
I haven't browsed the code either, but I don't believe viewing this
code would kick in additional restrictions. If that's true, then Jesse
Nope, in feature freeze now, and code freeze after Friday this week.
Tim
On 18/Nov/2009 16:50, Nathan Beyer wrote:
Aren't we in a code freeze?
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:19 AM, regi...@apache.org wrote:
Author: regisxu
Date: Wed Nov 18 06:19:58 2009
New Revision: 881682
URL:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Nathan Beyer ndbe...@apache.org wrote:
I haven't browsed the code either, but I don't believe viewing this
code would kick in additional restrictions. If that's true, then Jesse
and other Android folks wouldn't be able to contribute much of
anything.
Yeah,
On 18/Nov/2009 03:09, James Gan wrote:
I'm wondering if there is use case in Harmony for several scalable
components in Amino library. You can see its scalability curve in following
posts:
http://aminoprj.blogspot.com/2009/08/performance-of-amino-stack.html
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Tim Ellison t.p.elli...@gmail.com wrote:
You'd have to look a bit closer to see if these data
structures are used heavily,
Please avoid adding nonblocking behaviour where it isn't required by the
API. Of the usages that Tim pointed out, all either don't
On 17/Nov/2009 10:03, Jesse Wilson wrote:
I should clarify that I'm only thinking about a particular set of unchecked
exceptions from java.lang: NullPointerException, IllegalArgumentException,
IllegalStateException, NoSuchElementException and IndexOutOfBoundsException.
Why did you pick that
On 18/Nov/2009 17:29, Jesse Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Nathan Beyer ndbe...@apache.org wrote:
I haven't browsed the code either, but I don't believe viewing this
code would kick in additional restrictions. If that's true, then Jesse
and other Android folks wouldn't be
On 18/Nov/2009 09:19, Alexei Fedotov wrote:
Hello Jesse,
Your link points to Google code which I cannot probably browse due to
ACQ restrictions.
As mentioned elsewhere, it's not an issue.
Anyway, I guess from your message that Google for
the sake of user friendliness added messages to NPE
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Tim Ellison t.p.elli...@gmail.com wrote:
Being consistent on checked exceptions like IOException is still
beneficial,
and we should continue to maintain our current behaviour.
Being consistent ... on throwing priority? So you are suggesting that
we
Tim,
As for my statement about Dalvik's code, it's easier to browse it [1]
(thanks for recalling our ACQ exception about APL) than to understand
my English attempts to rephrase it.
As for my example, the analogy was even more direct. I was trying to
understand when I should throw exception -
One more thing about fixing tests. Ok, the exception order should not
be tested. But the method still should be invoked (giving the same
code coverage), and the method result (exception) should be checked in
a less rigorous way, e.g. it should be a runtime exception.
2009/11/18 Tim Ellison
13 matches
Mail list logo
