Am Freitag, den 04.03.2005, 11:22 +0100 schrieb Christopher Oezbek:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:45:13 +0100, Thomas Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > if future versions define another item then you can still
> > _set_ that item on an older version without getting an exception.
> > It just won't
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:45:13 +0100, Thomas Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if future versions define another item then you can still
_set_ that item on an older version without getting an exception.
It just won't do what you expect it to do. Which in this case isn't
halve
bad.
In the future en
On Friday 04 March 2005 01:57, Robert Schuster wrote:
> Now, I have two questions:
> 1) Who codes such crap and are we really really forced to adopt this? (I
> propose setting the value to DO_NOTHING_ON_CLOSE if the argument is
> invalid. )
Actually; the not throwing an exception makes sense from
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:57:53AM +0100, Robert Schuster wrote:
> Hi list,
> I just found out the following & got a headache from it:
>
> GNU Classpath's JDialog rejects illegal values given to the method
> setDefaultCloseOperation() with a IllegalArgumentException. This is good for
> robustnes
Hi list,
I just found out the following & got a headache from it:
GNU Classpath's JDialog rejects illegal values given to the method
setDefaultCloseOperation() with a IllegalArgumentException. This is good
for robustness but it is not what the official implementation does :-(
The official JDialo
5 matches
Mail list logo