Moses DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
>
Spoke with Paul last night. He doesn't think it breaks clean-room.
Brian
--
|-------------------------------|Software Engineer
|Brian Jones |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |http://www.nortel.net
|http://www.classpath.org/ |------------------------------
