Re: [cp-patches] Stupid spec constant values

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Stuart,

On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 14:16 -0400, Stuart Ballard wrote:
> Here are a couple of patches to deal with japi errors relating to
> constant field values. In both cases they reflect stupidity in the
> spec but since binary compatibility *does* require that constant field
> values should match I think the japi errors are valid. Sun even
> include these values in their documentation these days, ridiculous as
> they are.

The RCSID fields really serve no good purpose and I would just propose
we remove these fields and ask for a japi override mode to ignore them.
I bet the value of these fields even changes between minor releases.

The LoaderHandler.packagePrefix is also a bit subtle. The only way I can
see why/how people are using it is to check whether a LoaderHandler is
actually the system LoaderHandler implementation. So changing it to
something that isn't actually the package that we define it in might
break code (not seen actual code that does that though).

IBM doesn't seem to document the value of this constant in their online
documentation and I don't have an RMI book handy to see what they say
about it. Although the whole class is deprecated so I doubt it really
matters much.

Cheers,

Mark

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part