On 13 Nov 1998, Brian Jones wrote:
> Paul Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Well I've played with my script a bit more (just to make it more
> > > hideous of course!) and I now have it trying to determine what is
> > > different about our classes versus the JDK using javap.
> >
> > Your script should ignore differences wrt methods marked as
> > synchronized.
> >
> > Non-public classes should be entirely ignored.
>
> I'll change it to not look at protected in a moment.
>
> > > Enough is different that I'm wondering if these results are even
> > > useful.
> >
> > Yes. It looks useful.
> >
> > > I'm wondering if Kaffe uses any automated method of determining
> > > signature compliance for public classes, functions, and data.
> >
> > I believe the Kaffe people believe that using javap to grab signature
> > headers would break their clean-room environment.
Why would it. You could write a HTML parser that would do the
exact same thing for the java doc generated files. Why would
the break the "clean room" nature of the product?
mo
dejong at cs.umn.edu
> Does it break clean-room to examine the public API in this manner?
>
> Brian
> --
> |-------------------------------|Software Engineer
> |Brian Jones |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |http://www.nortel.net
> |http://www.classpath.org/ |------------------------------
>
