Chris Gray wrote: > On Tuesday 09 May 2006 22:03, Etienne Gagnon wrote: >> Yes. But only by checking out everything. >> >> I am developing a API "stubs" project, which is a full "stubs" >> implementation of the Java 1.5 API. My objective was actually to allow >> for not needing an API "implementation" to compile code against the API. >> I was planning to use this, among other uses, for compiling SableVM's >> luni-kernel implementation. > > For what my opinion is worth (on a good day, a cup of coffee, but not at > Caffè > Florian), this would be an excellent thing to have. It will never be easy to > work on the core Java APIs in a totally modular way (because Sun didn't > design things that way), but with such a set of stubs one could at least work > on a group of classes in isolation and be able to compile them to bytecode. > Furthermore the stubs can readily be used for white-box testing during > development, by simply adding println()s. Go for it!
I disagree -- we spent a good period of time last summer carving up the class library into modules defined by Java and internal APIs. I believe it would be detrimental to disregard these boundaries by compiling against the entire Java APIs, as that would perpetuate the 'spaghetti code syndrome'. We could use compile-against stubs, but would also need them for the org.apache.* packages that comprise our internal APIs, for now I see no problem with using the actual JARs that we produce. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
