On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 10:17:04AM +0400, Anton Avtamonov wrote: > - Am I right that source/binary compatibility implies that > package-private implementation also matches?
I'll suggest you take another look at Vladimir's definition -- source compatibility as he defines it means that, for A and B, you can compile your apps against both A and B. > - Do we really need to be source/binary compatible? Yes, by the definitions of souce/binary compatible that Vladimir used. > Do you think that > existing compatibility guideline > http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/compat.html > is not enough? I suspect that we will want to extend those guidelines (turning the general bits into specific bits) for some of the things vladimir mentioned. For example, I can imagine that we implement guidelines such as "write 1.4 source code when using collections except where it breaks compatibility". cheers! Leo --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
