I think I've fixed the majority of problems in the script at this
point. I've run it using a 1.2 classes.zip now and those results are
available at http://www.classpath.org/~brian/compat/results-1.2.txt.
I'm redoing the 1.1 check and that should be done in an half hour or
so and available at that
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Brian Jones
>
>
> I think I've fixed the majority of problems in the script at this
> point. I've run it using a 1.2 classes.zip now and those results are
> available at http://www.classpath.org/~brian
John Keiser wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Brian Jones
> >
> >
> > I think I've fixed the majority of problems in the script at this
> > point. I've run it using a 1.2 classes.zip now and those results are
> > availa
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stuart Ballard
>
> FWIW, I strongly agree with John about protected classes. Protected
> members of a class *ARE* part of the public API in Java. They are
> included in the Javadocs just like public members. It's a fundamental
> fe
John Keiser wrote:
>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stuart Ballard
> >
> > FWIW, I strongly agree with John about protected classes. Protected
> > members of a class *ARE* part of the public API in Java. They are
> > included in the Javadocs just like publi
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stuart Ballard
>
> John Keiser wrote:
> >
> > Can you show one example of a protected class in the
> documentation? I think
> > that would settle this for good. Paul asserted that there were
> no protected
> > classes in JavaDoc
John Keiser wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stuart Ballard
> >
> > FWIW, I strongly agree with John about protected classes. Protected
> > members of a class *ARE* part of the public API in Java.
I think you guys are debating different points. I hop
Stuart Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Keiser wrote:
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > > Brian Jones
> > >
> > >
> > > I think I've fixed the majority of problems in the script at this
> > > point. I've run i
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Brian Jones
>
> Stuart Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > FWIW, I strongly agree with John about protected classes. Protected
> > members of a class *ARE* part of the public API in Java.
>
> ClassLoader from 1.2 has a number
"John Keiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Only remaining problem I can see: "Missing classes" and "extra classes"
> need to ignore package-private and private clsases, and, I suppose,
> protected ones, even though I don't like that rule.
>
> This is very useful information. Thanks!
>Can you show one example of a protected class in the documentation? I
think
>that would settle this for good. Paul asserted that there were no
protected
>classes in JavaDoc and concluded based on that that Sun didn't intend for
>protected classes to be part of the public API.
Not an entire cla
"Aaron M. Renn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Can you show one example of a protected class in the documentation? I
> think
> >that would settle this for good. Paul asserted that there were no
> protected
> >classes in JavaDoc and concluded based on that that Sun didn't intend for
> >protected
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Brian Jones
>
> "Aaron M. Renn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >Can you show one example of a protected class in the documentation? I
> > think
> > >that would settle this for good. Paul asserted that there were no
> > protect
"John Keiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's just use that as an indication that protected classes are
> allowed.
Everyone seems to be missing my point.
Top-level non-public classes should not be implemented. Period. The
only valid modifiers for a top-level class are "public", "abstrac
Paul Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "John Keiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Let's just use that as an indication that protected classes are
> > allowed.
>
> Everyone seems to be missing my point.
>
> Top-level non-public classes should not be implemented. Period. The
> only val
15 matches
Mail list logo