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]
