Some more searching of the harmony commits mailing list reveals PolicyNode: http://harmony.markmail.org/search/?q=PolicyNode
but NOT PolicyNodeImpl: http://harmony.markmail.org/search/?q=PolicyNodeImpl This suggests, but does not prove without further investigation at the svn level, that this class was Google Android specific, and never part of Apache Harmony (despite the class name). Stephen On Oct 29, 1:06 am, JodaStephen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm, its late and my last post was faulty. Clearly, the first link > indicates a harmony package name (my code blindness read it as an > android package due to the href). > However, the current svn apparently does not contain the > class:http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/java/trunk/classlib/mod... > > I think a whole lot more digging is needed here to find the true > original checkin referred to here. I would note that it is test code. > > For now, I retract the previous email, although clearly if the checkin > was at Apache and was a copy then it breached the rules laid > down:http://harmony.apache.org/get-involved.html, something that would be > very disappointing > Stephen > > On Oct 29, 12:52 am, JodaStephen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This class appears to be an Android class, NOT a Harmony/Apache class > > >http://www.netmite.com/android/mydroid/1.6/dalvik/libcore/support/src... > > (package org.apache.harmony.security.tests.support.cert;) > > >http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/hotspot/jdk/raw-file/00cd9dc3c2b5/src... > > (package sun.security.provider.certpath;) > > > The distinction is VERY important to the credibility of Apache and > > Harmony! > > Note also the explicit Harmony contribution > > rules:http://harmony.apache.org/get-involved.html > > > Stephen > > > On Oct 28, 10:18 pm, Craig Kelley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Also note the absence of generics in the Apache version. This is > > > something you would lose, coming from a class file. > > > > On Oct 28, 2:49 pm, markmahieu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The Android version looks strikingly like code that's been decompiled > > > > from a class file, to me. All local variables seem to use naming > > > > that's very formulaic, and unusual for a Java developer to choose > > > > (with such consistency anyway). Then there's the fact that the > > > > ANY_POLICY constant is defined, but the literal is used in the code > > > > instead. I've seen decompilers create the slight differences in loop > > > > styles too. > > > > > Most curious. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
