Hello > afaik java.lang.Object is something like another primitive type. I.e. in the > jvm there are value types and there is one reference type which is > java.lang.Object. As all other classes are derived from this one, variables > having a type of class xyz are also treated as references. That's the only > thing I do know which might create a need to bind this class tightly to the > jvm and cause trouble if you add references into java.lang.Object itself.
I noticed that the GNU classpath project had a note about this. ie: when you use GNU classpath for your own VM, you have to implement some stuff in your VM. But our goal is (was?) to use a standard VM. > BTW: Why the hell should anybody have to modify this class? Would be very > interesting to know. I'm implementing dynamic Type checking for the Universe Type System. This is a way of making sure object structures don't leak and nobody outside can modify anything inside and break invariants. Here's a link to a paper if you're interested: http://sct.inf.ethz.ch/publications/papers/MuellerPoetzsch-Heffter01a.pdf > There might also be some ways to solve your problem... Yeah, it looks as if I have to think of one :) -- Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
