At 06:15 AM 6/4/01 -0700, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>Actually, for the Excalibur stuff, I wanted to have
>the intialize() function take care of that. It is
>IMO messy to have a makeReadOnly() method when
>something like that can be hidden. I will check,
>but hopefully you haven't altered the interfaces--
>that would suck. It would break backwards
>compatibility for something that is another concern.
forwards compatibility is there as it is a RuntimeException that is
generated on failure.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
