Re: Package-private access checking in GCJ 3.3

["Ranjit Mathew" <rmathew at hotmail dot com>]

> > > >  4.
> > > > gnu.java.nio.{Byte,Char,Double,Float,Int,Long,Short}BufferImpl
> > > > illegally use the respective constructors in base classes
> > > > java.nio.{Byte,Char,Double,Float,Int,Long,Short}Buffer.
> > > >
> > > >  5. gnu.java.nio.ByteBufferImpl illegally uses "backing_buffer"
> > > >     from java.nio.ByteBuffer.
> > >
> > >Are you using 3.3 branch ? These files are already moved to
> > > java.nio because of this private access stuff. Jikes found this
> > > problems for me in classpath ....
> > >
> > >I think the only problems are with files not (yet) merged with
> > >classpath. Of course some are libgcj special and will never be
> > >merged.
> >
> > Yes, I am using the 3.3 branch. However, I still would recommend
> > fixing these problems in this branch, if we say that we want to
> > have this bug fixed for 3.3.1 (tentatively scheduled for the 4th of
> > July, AFAICT).
> >
> > If we don't, well, don't bother.
>
> At least for the NIO stuff this would mean a bigger restructuring to
> do it right. I dont think thats okay for 3.3 branch as its in only
> bug fixing mode.

Not really - this can simply be avoided by making the constructors
in the java.nio.XYZBuffer classes "protected".

Ditto for "backing_buffer" in java.nio.ByteBuffer.

This might not be in line with the JavaDoc for these classes, but
it is at least better than what we currently have in 3.3.

Ranjit.

_________________________________________________________________
Feeling lost and loneyl? Need a little astro guidance? 
http://www.msn.co.in/Astrology/