[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More finalize woes

From: Dalibor Topic
Subject: Re: More finalize woes
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:02:33 -0800 (PST)

--- Tom Tromey <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>> "Dalibor" == Dalibor Topic <address@hidden>
> writes:
> Dalibor> Your generator ends up with a different set
> of test cases for
> Dalibor> Classpath and for JDK. This may not be what
> you want but it's
> Dalibor> what you get when methods are left out ;)
> This is an interesting example.  I'm not so sure
> that what you end up
> with is incorrect in a significant way, though.  Or
> perhaps you'd
> prefer to write your test generator to look at all
> the methods,
> inherited or declared, in a given class.

I'd prefer to run an 'inheritance chain' of tests, so
a CharArrayReader should pass its own black box tests,
and the tests for Reader as well, for example.

> Dalibor> beside, the 'least surprise' argument
> applies here as
> Dalibor> well. If I extend Classpath's Deflater to
> implement my own
> Dalibor> SuperfastNativeDeflater, then I'd like to
> rely on finalize()
> Dalibor> calling end(), as the spec says.
> In cases where there is a finalizer with a
> documented effect, I agree
> we must implement it.  I'm just talking about
> trivial finalizers -- I
> think we don't need those.

I'm wondering if there are any trivial finalizers in
the spec, or just 'underdocumented' ones ;)

dalibor topic

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]