On 24/06/2008, Christian Thalinger <twisti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 15:20 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > Since OpenJDK has been released, I've noticed that a tendency has > > arisen to not treat > > that codebase with the same 'don't look if working on the same code' > > approach we had > > when it was proprietary. When working on GNU Classpath, we still need > > to be careful > > about cross-pollination between codebases, even though the OpenJDK > > class libraries > > are under (nearly) the same license. > > > > This also applies for other class libraries, namely Harmony's. > > > I guess this email came from the Long.signum() discussion we had today > on IRC. Today I noticed that we are failing this one, so I tried with > CACAO/OpenJDK and it worked. Then I had a look at GNU Classpath's code > and it was simply a one-liner. Wondering why it failed, I looked at the > OpenJDK code and asked Mark if we could not simply use that correct > implementation (from OpenJDK). > That's correct, but it's something that's troubled me for a while and with previous patches. > My point is, people are still working like in the "good old" proprietary > way, at least I do. But also back then one-liners haven't been a > problem. > It wasn't that specific case, but it reminded me of the issue in general. And, of course, that particular one-liner is taken from a book anyway! > - twisti > > -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
