PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order
that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds
like all
:
-Original Message-
From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:19 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Magnusson, Geir wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:19 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order
that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds
like all
is
correct.
Right, from
] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order
that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds
like all
is
correct.
Right, from the spec point of view
:19 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order
that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light
@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order
that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like
all is
correct
] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order
that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all is
correct.
Right, from the spec point of view everything is correct. But I'd
like
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order
that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all is
correct.
Right
13, 2006 10:19 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order
that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all
]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order
that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all
is
correct.
Right, from the spec point of view everything
Hi,
I have discovered we have small incompatibility in our java.lang.Class
implementation. The order of elements returned by
Class.getDeclaredMethods() differs from RI. The spec says here: The
elements in the array returned are not sorted and are not in any
particular order. But I already know
I assume you mean [drlvm], since java.lang.Class in [classlib] is just a
stub, right?
Anyway, what would you say exactly? That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all is
On 7/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume you mean [drlvm], since java.lang.Class in [classlib] is just a
stub, right?
Anyway, what would you say exactly? That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order that the RI
does? I'm not
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Zhang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:04 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
On 7/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume you mean
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all is
correct.
Right, from the spec point of view everything is correct. But I'd
like to say that our particular order differs from
-Original Message-
From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:19 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than
On 7/13/06, Magnusson, Geir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:19 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our
] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order
that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all is
correct.
Right, from the spec point of view everything is correct. But I'd
like to say that our
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
I know one already.
Go on, stop teasing, what is it? ;-)
As others have said elsewhere, if you can determine the order, and we
don't have to perform unnatural acts to make it the same, then no reason
to be different just because we can.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison
Go on, stop teasing, what is it? ;-)
Not a big deal, I have already mentioned it in my first mail. This is
our java.beans tests. :-) The idea was if one person hit upon the idea
of such tests then another person can similarly build a complete
application based on the same precondition.
Magnusson, Geir wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:19 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
That our not in any particular
order is different than the not in any particular order
that the RI
does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds like all is
correct.
Right, from the spec point of view everything
23 matches
Mail list logo
