What is so objectionable about it? If you think securing a method is a
good idea (I'm not sure I do, but let's assume for the sake of
argument), why is this answer "square"? :) I don't doubt there is a
better answer, but what is it?
Frank
Laurie Harper wrote:
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
I saw a very similar question asked a few months back in a general Java
forum, and I suggested an answer that I've never had the chance to
actually try out... the theory is interesting though...
In the method you want to "protect", immediately throw an exception and
catch it. Then, parse the stack trace and see who the caller was. If
it's not a class you want to have access to the method, throw an
IllegalAccessException.
Again, it's one of those things that sounds good in your head, I have no
idea if it translates to anything workable :)
Ewwww! If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least don't make it
square ;-)
L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
