Hi, Jochen...
> > I checked JavaSource.newJavaField and found it in three places. Below
is a
> > diff.
> It seems, you are using the 0.4 branch.
Actually I don't know :)
I think I downloaded the source archive from one of the mirrors ("The
preferred way to obtain JaxMe distributions"), so I don't have current CVS
versions. I know it would be better setting up CVS when I'm actually
giving out patches, but then again I thought your framework was so perfect
there would be no need :)
> Applies you find a suggested patch for the HEAD (aka 0.5) branch.
Do I understand you right that this patch is for 0.5 and you ask me if it
patches correctly a 0.4, too? Well, I can't say, I don't have 'patch'
laying around here (and would manually implement the changes).
Or was the question if this patch showes the correct behavior? I assume so
- as far as I see it you just set the default value of assumePackage from
false to true and eliminating the choice alltogether. I thought about
this, too, but didn't know if there was a reason behind it being possible
to explicitely set to false. I think this way is better.
> (It simply eliminates getInstance(String).)
AND sets assumePackage to true :)
> --- ant/docs.xml 14 Jul 2005 20:27:37 -0000 1.5
> - <target name="javadoc" depends="all"
> + <target name="javadoc" depends="PM.all"
don't know what this does, won't touch
Actually I didn't apply the patch but changed getInstance and then fixed
all now broken calls. I assume this to be what you've done, but haven't
checked if the patches would be equal.
It seems to work.
Actually it seems to be much slower now, but this could have other reasons
as well.
:Frederic:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
