This is the mail archive of the java-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [BC] Patch: Cached class map

From: Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Cc: java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:36:14 -0500
Subject: Re: [BC] Patch: Cached class map
References: <m3oeioduic.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <16767.62665.881475.791718@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <16767.63050.12354.298557@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <m3fz3zddat.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <16769.12680.465178.29779@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <41898761.2070501@redhat.com> <16778.1808.588397.847338@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>

Andrew Haley wrote:

Bryce McKinlay writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > >2004-10-28 Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> > > > > * gnu/gcj/runtime/PersistentByteMap.java: New file. > > * jv_dbtool.java: New file. > > Shouldn't we put jv_dbtool in a package - say, gnu.gcj.tools or gnu.gcj ?

Well, I was about to rename it anyway, so I'm interested in suggestions. What would be better if I did this?

I'd say:

- Cleaner top-level libjava directory - Establishes a common place to put other possible future tools - Better conformance with Java coding conventions, which discourage putting things in the top-level (empty) namespace

Regards

Bryce

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [BC] Patch: Cached class map
  - From: Andrew Haley

References:
- [BC] Patch: FYI: two linker fixes
  - From: Tom Tromey
- [BC] Patch: Cached class map
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: [BC] Patch: Cached class map
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Re: [BC] Patch: Cached class map
  - From: Andrew Haley

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]