jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> > I am not 100% sure, but I think it is because the class that implements
> > the interface is default or private (I don't remember - I looked when
> > this was first reported a while ago...)
>
> Even so, it seems like a JVM bug if the class is implementing a public
> interface. Is there some special Java rule that says "introspection no
> worky if the implementing class is not public"?
>
> Hmmm, now that I think about it, implemention might be more difficult
> wrt security models if introspection had to take interfaces into
> account.
Right. The JVM is doing the right thing, as annoying as it is to us
in this case... ;>
--
Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
