Hi Thorsten, >>[assertions] >>We don't need to think about it. We thought about it too often, we had >>results, just nothing happened. We need to Just Do It (TM). >> > My memory is failing on me for this - what have been those results?
I can't find it right now. It was some mail in [EMAIL PROTECTED], posted - IIRC - by Kay Ramme. It was the result of a longer (offline) discussion between Kay, Stephan Bergmann, Daniel Boelzle, and me (not sure if this were all). In essence (IIRC) - we need a "assert-or-abort"-type assertion, also enabled in product builds - existing assertion types (which only *report* in non-product versions) are a good thing to have. - Changing existing assertion usages to the "assert-or-abort" does not make sense, as they're widely used in a different semantics - more levels of assertions (better: traces) make sense. In particular, we need warnings, and infos. - The TOOLS and the OSL assertions need to be consolidated into *one* system in the SDK - The existing TOOLS facilities (object counting, more fine-grained reports, and the like) are to be ported down to the SDK. (Somebody of the other participants correct me if I'm wrong / something's missing.) That was basically the agreement. We just never started it. Which is understandable to some extent - for instance, warning-free code was draining a lot of resources which otherwise could have gone into this -, but sad, on the other hand. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Database http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
