The wrapper class example is defective if the verifier is "conventional" -- doesn't have the swizzle you describe since 1.6.
On Oct 20, 12:53 pm, fadden <fad...@android.com> wrote: > On Oct 19, 6:47 pm, DanH <danhi...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > Even if you never actually execute the code that's causing the > > problem, the verifier will reject it, since it's doing a static check > > and can't tell what code is or isn't executed. > > That's a pretty concise explanation of the difference between 1.6 and > 2.0. > > In <= 1.6, if the verifier couldn't find a field or decided that you > didn't have access to a package/private method, it would reject the > entire class immediately. > > In >= 2.0, the verifier inserts an "always throw" instruction and > verification continues. Nothing fails unless you actually try to > execute the code in question. > > It looks like xcxin.mysecret.mainSecretActivity.processContact() is > attempting to access a static field > android.provider.ContactsContract.CommonDataKinds.Phone.CONTENT_URI > that didn't exist in 1.6. (In fact, I don't think ContactsContract > existed in 1.6.) > > Some notes about backward compatibility can be found here: > > http://developer.android.com/resources/articles/backward-compatibilit... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
