John Keiser wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Brian Jones
> >
> >
> > I think I've fixed the majority of problems in the script at this
> > point. I've run it using a 1.2 classes.zip now and those results are
> > available at http://www.classpath.org/~brian/compat/results-1.2.txt.
> > I'm redoing the 1.1 check and that should be done in an half hour or
> > so and available at that point on the web as well.
> >
> > I think there is definitely some good information there, so I hope it
> > helps!
>
> Only remaining problem I can see: "Missing classes" and "extra classes"
> need to ignore package-private and private clsases, and, I suppose,
> protected ones, even though I don't like that rule.
FWIW, I strongly agree with John about protected classes. Protected
members of a class *ARE* part of the public API in Java. They are
included in the Javadocs just like public members. It's a fundamental
feature of Java that some APIs are used by extending the base classes,
and protected members are made available for precisely this reason. The
undocumented APIs are the package-private and private members, and we
certainly shouldn't include those - but protected members *are* part of
the public API, and *are* documented, and we *must* provide them if we
wish to be compatible.
Sorry if this sounds aggressive, I just think full compatibility with
the documented Java spec is of *primary* importance to Classpath.
Thanks for listening to my rant ;)
Stuart.
