[Mono-dev] Moma early results.

[Jonathan Pobst]

Usage frequency I suppose.  If DataRowCollection.Count is listed 100 
times for example, it doesn't mean the property is called 100 times at 
runtime, it actually means the user has typed it out 100 times in their 
code, and would need to replace/change/fix all 100 occurrences.

It's probably more useful for the user's results report than the 
submitted report, but we can still use it to determine that implementing 
this one little property is going to alleviate 1000 calls across 10 apps 
instead of 10 calls over 10 apps.

Jon


Alan McGovern wrote:
> Not sure if this has been fixed already or not, but if you look at the 
> largest file in the archive, it has the same methods reported multiple 
> times (100's of times?). Is there any point to that?
> 
> Alan.
> 
> On 11/27/06, *Miguel de Icaza* < miguel at ximian.com 
> <mailto:miguel at ximian.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hey folks,
> 
>         I have posted the 102 results that have been submitted so far from
>     running Moma on people's binaries.
> 
>         The results have been cleaned up a little bit, I removed a few
>     methods that were implemented and methods that had bogus MonoTODO
>     entries, which were removed in the last couple of weeks since the
>     original databases for Moma were created.
> 
>         The results are available here:
> 
>             http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/tmp/results-moma.tar.gz
>     <http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/tmp/results-moma.tar.gz>
> 
>         It is worth noticing that in some cases, an API in the documentation
>     is flagged as existing in "1.1" and "2.0", while the actual method was
>     introduced in 2.0.
> 
>         This happens because in 1.1 you could still call the method, and the
>     call would be satisfied by calling into the parent class of a method.
> 
>         For example Exception.GetType() is a method that calls into
>     base.GetType(), it is flagged in the documentation as "available" in
>     1.1, but it did not actually exist back then.
> 
>         So to implement methods like this, the #if NET_2_0 must be used;
>     The same happens extensively in Windows.Forms, when they had to override
>     a few methods to catch some values (is my guess), they are
>     documented as
>     being in 1.1, but they were not.
> 
>         It is important thus to check the results of corcompare, see:
> 
>             http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/mono-HEAD-vs-fx-2/
>     <http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/mono-HEAD-vs-fx-2/>
> 
>         and:
> 
>             http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/mono-HEAD-vs-fx-1-1/
> 
>     Miguel
>     _______________________________________________
>     Mono-devel-list mailing list
>     Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
>     <mailto:Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com>
>     http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>     <http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list>
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list