These utils should definitely not be Java apps. Bootstrap problems.
It is possible, given the Java grammar, to find out every class that is
referenced by a .java file without too much fuss, even with the java.io.*
imports. Be a little more expensive, but IMO, worth it.
--John Keiser
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Biggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 9:42 AM
> To: classpath
> Subject: Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited
>
>
> If we do explicit import statements for every class our class depends on
> we could easily generate a makefile in the way that the "mkmf" utility
> does for C(++). I think explicit imports help readability anyway, as
> long as classes are well-named and non-conflicting (general imports such
> as java.io.* could still work, just be a little more expensive in terms
> of the classes to check). The utility would look for "import x.y.z",
> check if the file x/y/z.java exists, and if so insert a make dependency
> line for x/y/z.class accordingly. Everything that needed it would have
> to import gnu.java.Config (replace with wherever Config.java lives).
>
> Do we want these utils to be java apps or does it matter?
>
> Wes
>
> Bernd Kreimeier wrote:
>
> > John Keiser writes:
> > > The problem with the public static final boolean variable
> > > is, you have to edit the source every time you want to change it.
> >
> > Different classpaths, different Config.java first?
> >
> > Yeah, well - last time I tried, javac seemed to screw up
> > dependencies to different packages (i.e. directories) or
> > so... reminds me, any recommendations on how to do
> > "make depend" for Java sources?
>
> --
> /* USWeb Corporation, http://www.usweb.com/ */
> /* A Strategic Partner for the Information Age */
> /* Phone: 310-335-5200 Facsimile: 310-640-3264 */
>
>
>
