On Jun 3, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Sven de Marothy wrote:
Hello,
And you can circumvent the language protection (package private...)
if you work hard enough too, I believe...
Keeping out of "java.lang" seems wise if we can arrange it...
By writing _only_ java.lang and java.lang.*,
we can truly speak of a separate implementation.
Adding only _parts_ of libraries like GNU ClassPath
would mean that users would implement Harmony library
policies, not Sun's, FSF's, or anybody elses.
Blatant Not-Invented-Hereism. This isn't about "Control over the
implementation", this was about language protection features.
I won't comment on NIH (as I didn't quite grok what Dan was saying -
I'm at 37k feet coming back on a redeye...) but we need to figure out
if the language protection features are enough of a benefit to
outweigh he risks of extending java.lang, and if the needs of 1.5
require so much more that the language protection is moot.
The FSF doesn't have any "library policy". What are you talking about?
By writing _only_ java.lang and java.lang.*,
we can truly speak of a separate implementation.
Why do you need a seperate implementation?
Separate from GNU Classpath or something else?
geir
/Sven
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
