You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@comcast.net> on 2004/03/30 21:05:53 UTC
Identifying possible blocker bugs
Please take a peek at:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27956
This may be a blocker bug.
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Identifying possible blocker bugs
Posted by Mindbridge <mi...@yahoo.com>.
It is interesting, a while ago I had seen something similar, with a Sun JDK
at that.
The code contains the following comment in DefaultComponentClassEnhancer:
// An earlier version of this code walked the interfaces directly,
// but it appears that implementing an interface actually
// puts abstract method declarations into the class
// (at least, in terms of what getDeclaredMethods() returns).
What I saw, I think, was a case when this was not true -- a class did not
have abstract methods just because it implemented interfaces and did not
define all their methods.
The problem is that I could not reproduce it later and thought it was a
fluke. In the light of this bug I am starting to think that perhaps it was
not. Will try to reproduce it again later.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@comcast.net>
To: "'Tapestry development'" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:05 PM
Subject: Identifying possible blocker bugs
> Please take a peek at:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27956
>
> This may be a blocker bug.
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> http://howardlewisship.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Identifying possible blocker bugs
Posted by Petter Måhlén <pe...@elevance.se>.
From
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/vmspec/2nd-edition/html/Concepts.doc.html#163
48:
----
An abstract method declaration introduces the method as a member, providing
its signature (§2.10.2), return type, and throws clause (if any), but does
not provide an implementation. The declaration of an abstract method m must
appear within an abstract class (call it A). Every subclass of A that is not
itself abstract must provide an implementation for m. A method declared
abstract cannot also be declared to be private, static, final, native,
strictfp, or synchronized.
----
In:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/classes.doc.html#3448
4
the same definition is given. To me that means that whenever an
implementation is provided, the method is not abstract, and the abstract
modifier should not be set. If the IBM-1.3.1 VM/compiler (whichever it is
that sets the flag) considers a method with a body in an abstract class to
be abstract, then that is a bug in the VM/compiler. And I personally don't
like a change that hides the error that it almost always points to - I much
prefer to have the exception thrown. I like my applications to blow up in my
face when I make a mistake so that I understand that I have made the
mistake.
Of course, that's not a solution for those who have to work with IBM-1.3.1.
Is there a way to identify the VM and version and implement the suggested
workaround only then? That's ugly, for sure, but maybe an option?
/ Petter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard M. Lewis Ship [mailto:hlship@comcast.net]
> Sent: den 30 mars 2004 21:06
> To: 'Tapestry development'
> Subject: Identifying possible blocker bugs
>
>
> Please take a peek at:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27956
>
> This may be a blocker bug.
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> http://howardlewisship.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org