[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Eclipse 3.0
From: |
Michael Koch |
Subject: |
Re: Eclipse 3.0 |
Date: |
Fri, 2 Jul 2004 13:20:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.6.2 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Am Freitag, 2. Juli 2004 13:00 schrieb Roman Kennke:
> for the 0.10 release we could and should throw out any such methods
> if it ain't break anything, and those, which would break
> compilation should either be implemented (best solution) or should
> throw a
> NotImplementedException, which tells exactly, WHAT and WHERE
> something is not implemented (and maybe WHY ;).
>
> Do you think, that makes sense? Or is this too much effort? Could
> finding such methods be automated?
I think this is a very bad idea. First its too late for such a big
change and second this would irritate users why their apps dont even
compile against GNU classpath anymore. Better add FIXMEs over all and
track them with tools like grep or Eclipse and implement them as time
and interest comes.
Michael
- --
Homepage: http://www.worldforge.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFA5UT0WSOgCCdjSDsRAkTzAJ4pDrmFXVp0Hp2mIBhCJqOHq92opwCfXshq
ttNKQLhIRJMdfT31sezGOJA=
=O9rW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: Eclipse 3.0, Mark Wielaard, 2004/07/02
- Re: Eclipse 3.0, Roman Kennke, 2004/07/02
- Re: Eclipse 3.0, Andrew John Hughes, 2004/07/02
- Re: Eclipse 3.0, Dalibor Topic, 2004/07/02
- Re: Eclipse 3.0 and unimplemented methods proposal, Andrew John Hughes, 2004/07/02
- Re: Eclipse 3.0 and unimplemented methods proposal, Casey Marshall, 2004/07/02
- Re: Eclipse 3.0 and unimplemented methods proposal, Andrew John Hughes, 2004/07/03
- Re: Eclipse 3.0, Andrew Haley, 2004/07/02
Re: Eclipse 3.0, Roman Kennke, 2004/07/02