On 9/15/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/14/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok, the second reason is convincing
I also gave up to follow RI because of it! If anyone could fix this bug
elegantly or not too ugly, I have no objection. :-) Otherwise, I don't
thin
On 9/14/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, the second reason is convincing
I also gave up to follow RI because of it! If anyone could fix this bug
elegantly or not too ugly, I have no objection. :-) Otherwise, I don't
think following RI makes sense. Thanks!
Thanks,
Mikhail
I have not said that it validaites. I said that it can :)
2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 9/14/06, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
>
> 2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura :
> > On 9/14/06, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> > >
> > > 2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura :
> > > > On 9/14/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > >
On 9/14/06, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura :
> On 9/14/06, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> >
> > 2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura :
> > > On 9/14/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are two reasons:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Spec has explicitly pointed out "No validation of the inputs is
2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 9/14/06, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
>
> 2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura :
> > On 9/14/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > >
> > > There are two reasons:
> > >
> > > 1. Spec has explicitly pointed out "No validation of the inputs is
> > > performed
> > > by this con
Ok, the second reason is convincing
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/9/14, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
There are two reasons:
1. Spec has explicitly pointed out "No validation of the inputs is performed
by this constructor."
2. The exception thrown sequence is really hard to follow, as described by
On 9/14/06, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura :
> On 9/14/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
> >
> > There are two reasons:
> >
> > 1. Spec has explicitly pointed out "No validation of the inputs is
> > performed
> > by this constructor."
>
>
>
> In this spec. quotation above there is one th
2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 9/14/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
>
> There are two reasons:
>
> 1. Spec has explicitly pointed out "No validation of the inputs is
> performed
> by this constructor."
In this spec. quotation above there is one thing that confuses me - "THIS
CONSTRU
On 9/14/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
There are two reasons:
1. Spec has explicitly pointed out "No validation of the inputs is
performed
by this constructor."
In this spec. quotation above there is one thing that confuses me - "THIS
CONSTRUCTOR". May this mean that validation of inputs is perfor
There are two reasons:
1. Spec has explicitly pointed out "No validation of the inputs is performed
by this constructor."
2. The exception thrown sequence is really hard to follow, as described by
Ilya, see examples below:
1. new URL("ss", "0", -3, null);
java.net.MalformedURLException: Invalid
It's not clear why it should be non-bug diff?
Shouldn't it be fixed to follow RI?
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/9/14, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Would any commiter like to confirm and close this "non-bug differences from
RI" jira? Thanks!
On 9/13/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
Would any commiter like to confirm and close this "non-bug differences from
RI" jira? Thanks!
On 9/13/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Andrew Zhang (JIRA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sep 13, 2006 11:02 AM
Subject: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-1158) [classlib][luni]Compatibility:
ja
From: Andrew Zhang (JIRA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sep 13, 2006 11:02 AM
Subject: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-1158) [classlib][luni]Compatibility:
java.net.URL new URL("ss", null, -3, null) throws MalformedURLException
while RI throws NPE
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/br
13 matches
Mail list logo
