From: Anthony C. <to...@ve...> - 2005-07-28 13:55:46
|
Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Wednesday 27 July 2005 18:35, Anthony Cook wrote: > > To put self-appraisal in perspective, I think Greg has an understanding of the > spefication above and beyond your own home studies.... ;o) > Yes, I'm sure Greg has an excellent grasp of the spec and I never disputed whether he does. So, why bother having these discussions, or this list for them, at all... we should just wait for the next Jetty release and see how things are supposed to be. :-/ > RI != Specification. > No, RI = "base for implementation comparison". Comparing an implementation's behaviour against the "reference implementation" is part of the "compatibility certification" process. Well, at least it /was/ during my time as a J2EE instructor at Sun, though I guess that ("RI part of certification") could have changed in the last three years. :-/ > It is not uncommon that reference implementations and/or TCK have bugs, and/or > the specification is too unclear and will be clarified in future amendments. > Yes, understood... and, so do non-reference implementations: have bugs, and corrections. > Catagorically saying that, Tomcat is the reference implementation and > therefor by definition does everything correct is ludicrous and makes you > look like a fool to me. > Again, someone else taking words out of context. :-/ I never said "it does everything correct since it is the reference implementation". I said, as the reference implementation, it is the standard for operational comparison. > If you are so concerned about specification adherence, and like Jetty as much > as you say, why don't you take time to help polish off the rough edges that > Yet, that is what I thought this list was for... to contribute and "help polish off" through observation, recommendation, and discussion. Admittedly, I'm not much of a systems programmer, though I like to "tinker" in that area. As an applications programmer (yea, I know, just a weeny compared to all you systems gods :-/ ), I do have to rely on the platform behaving in accordance with the published specifications... er, imperfect as they may be, and at least within the limits my own "home studies" lead me to understand them... for my applications to perform "correctly". As a consultant working on a disparity of implementations, including Jetty, this is even more important to me. Though, I guess I have these points wrong too and, so, really have nothing to contribute. > you claim is there. Putting up "wide" definitions of things that "behaves > I made mention of a few issues about which specification adherence was recently raised, in this forum. Iow, I made "reference" to something already put up. > outside the scope of the specification" is not about caring, it is close to > instigating FUD and should be avoided. Bring stuff up, one by one and let's > discuss it. > Yes, my nefarious plan to destroy Jetty has been rooted out. > Cheers > Niclas > |