Hello.
> > Modified:
> > commons/proper/math/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/math/ode/sampling/DummyStepInterpolatorTest.java
> > URL:
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/math/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/math/ode/sampling/DummyStepInterpolatorTest.java?rev=1078734&r1=1078733&r2=1078734&view=diff
> > ==============================================================================
> > ---
> > commons/proper/math/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/math/ode/sampling/DummyStepInterpolatorTest.java
> > (original)
> > +++
> > commons/proper/math/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/math/ode/sampling/DummyStepInterpolatorTest.java
> > Mon Mar 7 10:37:52 2011
> > @@ -123,7 +123,9 @@ public class DummyStepInterpolatorTest {
> > fail("an exception should have been thrown");
> > } catch (IOException ioe) {
> > // expected behavior
> > - assertEquals(0, ioe.getMessage().length());
> > + // XXX Why was the message supposed to be empty?
> > + // With the current code it is "org.apache.commons.math.util.Pair".
> > + // assertEquals(0, ioe.getMessage().length());
>
> The problem here is that the exception thrown which is an IOException
> built from the empty string in the BadStepInterpolator below is not the
> IOException that is caught here. In fact the IOException caught is
> really a java.io.NotSerializableException which is built with the
> message "org.apache.commons.math.util.Pair" automatically by the
> serialization process in the JVM (at least for Oracle implementation).
>
> All exceptions must be serializable (this comes from java.lang.Throwable
> implementing the Serializable interface). This was also one reason why
> our Localizable interface had to extends Serializable, so it could be
> used as a field in our exceptions.
>
> This change added a List<Pair<Localizable, Object[]>> field in
> MathRuntimeException. Pair is not serializable. Adding Serializable to
> the implemented interfaces in Pair does solve the problem (if also the
> change below is reverted, of course) but I don't think it would be wise
> unless we also enforce the two generic parameters of Pair to be
> serializable too. Perhaps we should use a Map<Localizable, Object[]>
> instead ?
No, because a key is unique (so that it won't be possible to add 2 messages
with the same pattern but different values.
I've created a "SerializablePair" (cf. revision 1079545) that seems to solve
the problem.
> The problem also makes me think that we already had a similar bug in
> another part of the exceptions for a long time : the Object or Object[]
> parameters of the exceptions are stored and may not be Serializable too.
> This was never a problem either because the parameters are often simple
> primitive ones (int, double ...) or arrays so they were serializable.
> Perhaps we should change the signature from Object and Object[] to
> Serializable and Serializable[] ?
I'm not fond of imposing "Serializable", as this would forbid user classes
that are not "Serializable" (or force them to make the class "Serializable"
although they don't have any use of that interface).
I think "Object" is more flexible in the sense that users who need
serialization will use "Serializable" classes and it will work...
> > }
> >
> > }
> > @@ -137,7 +139,7 @@ public class DummyStepInterpolatorTest {
> > }
> > @Override
> > protected void doFinalize() throws MathUserException {
> > - throw new MathUserException((Localizable) null,
> > LocalizedFormats.SIMPLE_MESSAGE, "");
> > + throw new MathUserException(LocalizedFormats.SIMPLE_MESSAGE,
> > null);
>
> This should not have been replaced. Null is not the smae thing as the
> empty String. Also this introduces a warning due to ambiguous signatures.
That was a mistake, but I didn't make it because I thought that
"" == null
was true ;-}.
Best,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
