better javap comparisons

1998-11-14 Thread 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/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

RE: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread John Keiser
> -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

Re: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread Stuart Ballard
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

RE: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread John Keiser
> 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

Re: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread Stuart Ballard
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

RE: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread John Keiser
> 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

Re: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread Wes Biggs
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

Re: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread Brian Jones
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

RE: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread John Keiser
> 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

Re: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread Brian Jones
"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!

Re: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread Aaron M. Renn
>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

Re: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread 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 > protected > >classes in JavaDoc and concluded based on that that Sun didn't intend for > >protected

RE: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread John Keiser
> 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

Re: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread Paul Fisher
"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

Re: better javap comparisons

1998-11-16 Thread Brian Jones
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