From harmony-dev-return-1774-apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Fri Jul 22 14:18:15 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 23708 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2005 14:18:14 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jul 2005 14:18:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 2148 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jul 2005 14:18:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 1938 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jul 2005 14:18:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 1842 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jul 2005 14:18:04 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:18:04 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [62.177.154.238] (HELO lembu.sumatrasoftware.com) (62.177.154.238) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:17:54 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: RE: Class library componentization Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:17:55 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Class library componentization Thread-Index: AcWOxag/l9JFFIMyTQSMtUZkU0gaLQAAiHBA From: "Jeroen Frijters" To: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Sven de Marothy wrote: > Please observe that JAPItools isn't fully 1.5-compatible=20 > (read: problems with generics, I think), so it reports more > errors than what's actually there. Actually, it underestimates the number of errors. For binary compatibility the results are still valid though. The differences really only matter for source level (and to a limited degree reflection) compatibility. Regards, Jeroen