ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jon Skeet" <>
Subject RE: Compilation error in VAJWorkspaceScanner
Date Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:52:34 GMT
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Jon Skeet <> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I get what seems to be a reasonable error on
> > compilation:
> > 
> > VAJWorkspaceScanner.match(Strin,String) Cannot reduce the visibility
> > of the inherited method from
> We finally have a committer who has access to the VAJ classes, woohoo!

I just got fed up with having to remove classes to get things to compile in Eclipse. Good
job I've got a cable modem, having downloaded two different versions of WebLogic and the eval
of VAJ :)
> You see the problem, nobody has been able to even try to compile them.
> In this particular case, the method in VAJWorkspaceScanner may have
> been necessary as match has been protected in DirectoryScanner until
> 2001-11-21.

But as it was protected in VAJWorkspaceScanner as well, who would have been able to use it
in VAJWorkspaceScanner but not in DirectoryScanner?

Doh - yes, of course: classes within the same package. Perhaps that was it...

> > Any thoughts about why this is a bad idea? Does a tool like this
> > already exist?
> I think Conor has been doing something like this with faked
> implementations for the starteam classes, but we didn't have a chance
> to do the same in the VAJ case (no accessible javadocs or something).

I started doing something like it myself on Friday, where in a text file you'd specify classnames,
method names etc. It worked reasonably, but I got into a mess with things like inner classes

> The only reasons not to do something like this are suspected legal
> problems.

Right. Well, as it sounds like a fun thing to do anyway, I'll write the code. I suspect we
may be able to say, "This tool allows you to build fake versions of jar files you already
have" even if we can't give the jar files themselves away. That means people can download
the eval versions of things and make fake jar files from them. It's still ropey in terms of
the legality after that, but perhaps if the legality is put on the side of the user rather
than Apache, it's not as much of an issue.

Do we have anyone we can turn to for legal advice on this? Or perhaps we could contact the
legal teams of the appropriate products to see whether they could give us special permission
to public a barebones jar file (which we could send them to check it out)? It's more likely
that they wouldn't mind that than that they'd allow the original jar files to go out. (I would
have thought IBM in particular would be okay with it, given their generally friendly nature
these days. I might just be naive though.)


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message