commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <>
Subject RE: [logging] Bug 38174 and JCL 1.1
Date Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:33:25 GMT
Parameters are neither fields nor constants.  There's a section below that
dealing with method/constructor parameters.  It doesn't mention anything
about making them final breaking binary compatibility.  I would seriously
doubt that it does, especially since it's call by value (value of a
reference or value of a primitive).  The only code that can change the value
of the reference (not the object pointed to by the reference) is the code
inside the method (this is all moot for primitive parameters).  So, it
should be okay, I would think.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin van den Bemt [] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:26 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [logging] Bug 38174 and JCL 1.1

Hi robert,

See 13.4.8 final Fields and Constants at

Short answer : yes and no :)


robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 19:17 +0100, Boris Unckel wrote:
>>Simon Kitching wrote:
>>>>>NB: I'm hoping to knock JCL1.1 into releasable state over the coming
>>>>>weekend and hold a vote on creating the first RC.
>>>>Please check to put the patch in bug 38174 into RC. Even if you decide
>>>>against the logic in the new "doLog" methods, it would be nice to have 
>>>>the other cleanup (javadoc, same null behaviour for all classes).
>>>Please check my comments on that bugzilla entry.
>>I have read your comments and opinions in the bugzilla entry[1].
>>As I do not want to put so much time in a more or less boring task
>>(improving the JavaDoc and care for doLog single method logic is a lot of
>>copy and correct paste) I have removed anything of the exception
>>I have also removed the String.valueOf when the underlying logger accepts
>>objects as message.
>>Every file has single patch. With accident cause I did an format after
>>removing the exception handling - sorry for that, it will cause more diff
>>than is really different.
>>Please consider again to put this into release.
> i'm going through the patches (by hand) now. 
> i notice that a lot of the parameters are now declared final (which is -
> usually - good). i would have expected that this should not effect
> binary compatibility but unfortunately, i can't find anywhere in the JLS
> where this is definitely specified. i'm very reluctant to add any
> changes which risk (at all) binary compatibility issues.
> anyone know of a definitive reference?
> - robert
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message