JDK 1.4 don't like to inherite from the nested interface BinaryTree.Node I renamed the interface to BinaryTreeNode and placed it i a new file freenet/support/BinaryTreeNode.java
Had to implement the namechange is some classes implementing from or using the Interface. But I think it is a good thing since Node is used in another context in the code. Should I commit these changes? regards, -- G?ran On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 11:22:22AM -0500, Tavin Cole wrote: > On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 04:48:17PM +0100, Goran Thyni wrote: > > JDK 1.4 is stricter in syntax, > > f.ex. there is some problems inheriting from > > inner/nested public classes and interfaces which > > appears in the current freenet code. > > > > GCJ also has troubles with these and it seems to > > be related in a too relaxed syntax in easrier versions > > of JDK. > > > > I would like to break the classes/interfaces into > > seperate files to make it compile with J2DK 1.4 and > > GCJ 3.x without breaking the compilation with earlier > > versions of jikes/jdk of course. > > > > Is this OK todo? > > You're proposing moving all inner classes into separate files? > That sounds like an infeasible and probably unjustifiable nightmare. > > We don't need to be concerned with GCJ. They are still very buggy and > obviously still getting their act together. When GCJ more or less works > we'll start worrying about how to accomodate it. > > What are the specific problems with JDK 1.4? We will do what we can to > conform to its syntactic requirements. > > -tc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 239 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020216/4f21e33a/attachment.pgp>
