[interfacekit] Re: Reproducing... bug ?

For that "Seek" error it was my bad. The original function function
correctly, so the one I implemented.  But still there's few "little" glitchs
in functions behaviors and what it said in the BeBook.

By example, if we try to set the size of the buffer in BMemoryIO and there's
not enough room for that, the BeBook said the function return B_NO_MEMORY.
But in reality when I made my testings, the function actually return a
straight B_ERROR.

Ok it's not a big deal. But I want to know if we reproduce the exact
behavior from the original libbe.so  or we path the problems by following
blindly the BeBook ?

- Steve


----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Jakowatz" <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <svallee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "interface kit team" <interfacekit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Reproducing... bug ?


> Do both and #ifdef them.  I think we'll need to do some "field tests" to
> determine whether or not we can make the improvement.  I would like to
> see it work correctly if we aren't going to break a bunch of apps by
> doing it.  I have a hunch that BMemoryIO is not a widely used class.
>
> Any other thoughts, folks?
>
> e
>
> >I'm currently doing full testing on my code, and realized there's a bug
> (or
> >non-implemented) method. It's the Seek() of BMemoryIO. It *always*
> return 0,
> >and do absolutely nothing, whatever the parameter we give. So as the
> >function is supposed to move the current pointer in the Memory IO, do I
> ..
> >
> >1) Emulate the *exact* behavior of the original Seek ...
> >
> >2) Implement it as it's supposed to be, because anyway no applications
> sould
> >have used it before especially because of it's bug...
> >
> >What do I choose in that kind of situation ?
> >
> >Thanks a lot !
> >Steve
>
> Data is not information, and information is not knowledge: knowledge is
> not understanding, and understanding is not wisdom.
> - Philip Adams

Other related posts: