Hi Vladimir
Have we agreed to mark these cases as 'non-bug-diff'? I though that
throwing a subclass is a valid behavior...
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/8/7, Vladimir Ivanov (JIRA) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1075?page=comments#action_12426130
]
Vladimir
+1
-Stepan.
On 8/3/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-935
I figure we should make it a clear vote thread so people don't miss it.
Lots of great work has been done on this subject by many people showing
great community spirit, collaboration and
Hi:
This is a long post, thanks for your patient to read it through :-)
I wrote a test case as below:
public void test_SubMap_Serializable() throws Exception {
TreeMapInteger, Double map = new TreeMapInteger, Double();
map.put(1, 2.1);
map.put(2, 3.1);
map.put(3,
On 8/7/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Vladimir
Have we agreed to mark these cases as 'non-bug-diff'? I though that
throwing a subclass is a valid behavior...
I think, that the difference in behaviour should be documented. For example,
if somebody develop application on
Hi, all:
I have some idea to test instrument.
For example, if we would like to test
Instrumentation.addTransformerwill throw NullPointerException if the
argument is null,
we can first write a TestInstrument with premain function.
import java.lang.instrument.Instrumentation;
public
Andrew Zhang wrote:
What shall we do if context classloader is null?
Try with the System classloader, and if that fails throw an exception.
Tim
RI still could load the configuration file even if context classloader is
null.
On 8/4/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jimmy, Jing Lv
Paulex Yang wrote:
Jimmy, Jing Lv wrote:
Hi,
As it is hard to write unit test for package instrument, I now
have an idea: write down some documents for details of non-unit test
cases for instrument. The detail of such test cases contain:
1. The test run on which platform, including
+1
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-935
I figure we should make it a clear vote thread so people don't miss it.
Lots of great work has been done on this subject by many people showing
great community spirit, collaboration and teamwork, and it's time
-Original Message-
From: Paulex Yang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:57 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [general] new snapshots up early morning... is the win2k
problem gone?
Sorry for response so late, I must get to office for a win2k PC...
Leo Li wrote:
Hi, all:
I have some idea to test instrument.
For example, if we would like to test
Instrumentation.addTransformerwill throw NullPointerException if the
argument is null,
we can first write a TestInstrument with premain function.
import
Hi,
Take a look at this: http://download.java.net/jdk6/docs/api/serialized-form.html
Maybe this document will give you an idea of what are those inner
classes... Of cause, in the new release serialized form may have
changed.
--
Oleg
On 8/7/06, Spark Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi:
This is
+1 (Though I've voted on this topic on a different thread)
2006/8/3, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-935
I figure we should make it a clear vote thread so people don't miss it.
Lots of great work has been done on this subject by many people
Does it mean that we are revisiting our agreement on more helpful error
messages? [1,2]
Should we now roll back for example Harmony-250?
Thanks,
Mikhail
[1]
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/agreements.html
[2]
On 8/7/06, Spark Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi:
This is a long post, thanks for your patient to read it through :-)
I wrote a test case as below:
public void test_SubMap_Serializable() throws Exception {
TreeMapInteger, Double map = new TreeMapInteger, Double();
map.put(1,
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Does it mean that we are revisiting our agreement on more helpful error
messages? [1,2]
They are orthogonal. I think that Mark was right on that our message
all over should be helpful, but then when we are throwing exceptions out
of standard classes, we need to take
2006/8/7, Jimmy, Jing Lv [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Leo Li wrote:
Hi, all:
I have some idea to test instrument.
For example, if we would like to test
Instrumentation.addTransformerwill throw NullPointerException if the
argument is null,
we can first write a TestInstrument with premain
Salikh Zakirov wrote:
Geir,
you have introduced copying of drlvm deploy directory to get the 'canonical'
build location
so that federated build could pick drlvm at predefined place.
I think this is an overkill, making the build process longer with no obvious
benefits.
Please don't
Hi,
I'm pleased to announce that a new 5.0 level IBM VME will be made
available soon at:
Great!
- Change Java build target from jsr14 to 1.5 :)
Does DRLVM supports 1.5 classes now?
The more specific question: does it support 1.5 annotations?
Thanks,
2006/8/7, Alexey Petrenko [EMAIL
Mark Hindess wrote:
If all the copying is done
so as to fail if it attempts to overwrite anything, then we can see when
different components of the federated build are overwriting files from
other components.
I agree with this statement, however,
my original patch tried to eliminate copying
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Salikh Zakirov wrote:
The following patch solves the problem (also in HARMONY-1083)
Thanks - quick scan, that works for me.
I have forgotten to specify component in HARMONY-1083,
is there any way to modify it? I do not see any edit links.
Alexey Petrenko wrote:
Does DRLVM supports 1.5 classes now?
AFAIK, DRLVM accepts 1.5 class files now,
but does not support any of the 1.5 APIs or annotations.
-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
Great news.
In the future, could you please prefix the subject line with something
appropriate, like [general]? It helps people prioritize and such...
thanks
Oliver Deakin wrote:
Hi all,
I'm pleased to announce that a new 5.0 level IBM VME will be made
available soon at:
Ok - I made that fix and still seem to have a problem, even after a
clean rebuild. I guess I should figure out how to turn on the trace...
Anton Luht wrote:
Hello,
The problem is with verifier.
The code in Verifier.cpp:
if( ( start_pc = len ) || ( end_pc = len ) || ( handler_pc
On Friday 04 August 2006 15:32, Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
Dalibor pointed me to this thread on harmony-dev. I can answer that kaffe
does not yet make a difference between weak references and soft references.
They are both cleared when the GC detects that the object is not anymore
strongly
Gregory Shimansky wrote:
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 00:01 Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Ok - I made that fix and still seem to have a problem, even after a
clean rebuild. I guess I should figure out how to turn on the trace...
The problem is that class loader does not chain VerifyError to
On 7/24/06, Mikhail Fursov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I think that VM can do this check but use lower border: e.g. 1/100 of
initial.
JIT must do this check more accurate: use knowledge of algorithms it
uses.
I lowered the defensive VM check to 1/100 of the initial stack size on both
Alexei, sorry for my late reply.
It seems a big problem to me. :) I haven't find any solution yet.
Futhurmore, ftp server also needs to be substituted. Do you have any
suggestions?
Anyway, let's start from http server -- jetty. :) Any committers would like
to integrate jetty to Harmony? Thanks!
On 8/8/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
Alexei, sorry for my late reply.
It seems a big problem to me. :) I haven't find any solution yet.
Futhurmore, ftp server also needs to be substituted. Do you have any
suggestions?
Anyway, let's start from http server -- jetty. :) Any committers would
like
to
as a lurker, any reason for not choosing Tomcat, as it already is an ASF
project?
I'd be happy to help out with that effort,
Filip
Andrew Zhang wrote:
Alexei, sorry for my late reply.
It seems a big problem to me. :) I haven't find any solution yet.
Futhurmore, ftp server also needs to be
Alexey Varlamov wrote:
2006/8/7, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2006/8/7, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Does it mean that we are revisiting our agreement on more
helpful error
messages? [1,2]
They are orthogonal. I think that Mark was right on that
30 matches
Mail list logo
