Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 48854 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2006 20:44:16 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Jan 2006 20:44:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 69971 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2006 20:44:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 69913 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2006 20:44:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 69902 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jan 2006 20:44:11 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:44:11 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of boris.unckel.mlg@gmx.net designates 213.165.64.21 as permitted sender) Received: from [213.165.64.21] (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.21) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:44:10 -0800 Received: (qmail 10890 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jan 2006 20:43:48 -0000 Received: from 83.135.199.224 by www93.gmx.net with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:43:48 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:43:48 +0100 (MET) From: "Boris Unckel" To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [logging] Bug 38174 and JCL 1.1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Authenticated: #143822 Message-ID: <27698.1137703428@www93.gmx.net> X-Mailer: WWW-Mail 1.6 (Global Message Exchange) X-Flags: 0001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hello Robert, robert burrell donkin wrote: > 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? First my apologies to not mention it in the patch description - I am used to final the parameters, so I did not recognize it actively. I cannot cite a spec or a similiar document. After your mail I just used JAD to decompile a class again. The final before the parameters is not part of the decompiled class. I know that this is not a proove, but a hint. If this is going to be a show stopper, the final should be removed. Regards Boris --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org