You are correct, but why take the performance and complexity hit to solve a non-existing problem?
Regards, Jeroen > -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Hamid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 20:44 > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [arch] How much of java.* and friends does > Harmony need to write. Was: VM/Classlibrary interface > > I actually had not considered this issue which would seem to warrant > these classes living in the same package. But can not an equivalent > solution be constructed such that the implementations of these public > classes can hand the VM* classes references to internal > structures (and > vice versa) though well defined interfaces, instead of relying on > visibility modifiers to allow the VM* objects to access > private state of > java.lang classes, thereby allowing the VM* objects to live in a > separate package? Or am I misunderstanding your statement (or maybe > that is just too cumbersome)? > > Aaron > > Jeroen Frijters wrote: > > > > You're missing the fact that moving these classes into > another packages > > creates another problem that is much worse. Namely that you > often need > > to access private state in the public classes, you can do > that by living > > in the same package, that's why the VM* classes live in the > same package > > as their public counterpart. > > > > Regards, > > Jeroen >
