Summary: | Fully qualified class names break visibility in WSWB 1.0. | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | OTI Support <support> |
Component: | Core | Assignee: | Olivier Thomann <Olivier_Thomann> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | P3 | CC: | judy_mullins |
Version: | 1.0 | ||
Target Milestone: | 2.1 M1 | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | Windows 2000 | ||
Whiteboard: |
Description
OTI Support
2002-06-14 17:44:59 EDT
It should not make a difference, even in 2.0 we should compile it clear. Should investigate. There is no error in 2.0. It compiles fine. Where can I get a copy of WSWB 1.0. I need it in order to reproduce this problem. You can get WSWB 1.0 from the jumpstart page. This is where our customers are downloading the product: http://jumpstart.raleigh.ibm.com/Workbench_Drivers/WSWB_1_0/wswb_1_0.html I reproduced the problem in both eclipse 1.0 and wswb 1.0. So it makes sense that the two behaviors are consistent. Should we investigate a fix or is it fine to say this is fixed in 2.0? The customer has been told that it is fixed in 2.0, but they are still requesting a fix. They claim they have too many errors to use a workaround of not using fully qualified class names. Fix proposal: Instead of: if (checkVisibility && n == size) { // if we're finished and know the final superinterface then check visibility SourceTypeBinding enclosingSourceType = enclosingSourceType(); if (enclosingSourceType == null ? !superType.canBeSeenBy(sourceType.fPackage) : !superType.canBeSeenBy(sourceType, enclosingSourceType)) return new ProblemReferenceBinding (CharOperation.subarray(compoundName, 0, n), NotVisible); } I would put: if (checkVisibility && n == size) { // if we're finished and know the final superinterface then check visibility if (!superType.canBeSeenBy(sourceType.fPackage)) return new ProblemReferenceBinding(CharOperation.subarray(compoundName, 0, n), NotVisible); } According to the existing code in 2.0. Could you please, Philippe, double check it? Thanks. Olivier - did you check other occurrences of usage of #checkVisibility ? Have they all evolved in the same way ? This seems to be the only occurrence of checkVisibility with a condition on the enclosing type. Backporting 2.0 behavior, and issuing a patch for this one, see details on the JDT/Core page (plug-in version for it will be 1.0.6) : http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/jdt-core- home/patches/org.eclipse.jdt.core_1.0.6.zip Sent fix to customer Can we closed this defect ? Actually, was closed already. |