>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> I think the main problem lies elsewhere. If you subclass a Chris> class which has a finalizer and your subclass needs to do some Chris> finalization of its own, then your finalizer needs to contain a Chris> call to super.finalize(). If the published API doesn't show a Chris> finalizer then you wouldn't include this statement. But that in itself is a bug. Binary compatibility rules allow a class implementor to add a finalize method at any time in the future. For this reason, all finalizers should call super.finalize(). In fact, if we add an empty finalize method, then that is a potential (if unlikely) bug -- if we ever add a finalizer in a superclass, oops. This doesn't mean that people don't do it, I guess. Tom _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
