Bug 32545 - Cannot override a method that's accessible in the superclass, but inaccessible in the super-superclass
Summary: Cannot override a method that's accessible in the superclass, but inaccessibl...
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 31398
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 2.1   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 blocker (vote)
Target Milestone: 2.1 RC2   Edit
Assignee: JDT-Core-Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-02-22 03:07 EST by Davor Cubranic CLA
Modified: 2003-02-22 04:52 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Davor Cubranic CLA 2003-02-22 03:07:16 EST
2.1M5

I'll describe the concrete problem:

Sun's Wireless Toolkit 1.0.4 defines class javax.microedition.lcdui.Displayable
which has method paint defined as abstract package private. In the same package,
there is also class Canvas, where paint is overriden as protected abstract.

Under 2.0, I could subclass Canvas and define the required paint method. Under
2.1, this is marked as syntax error because I'm trying to override a method that
was marked as package private in Displayable (but which my class, not being
abstract, has to define).

I'm not a Java language expert, but in my reading of the language specification
(2nd ed., section 8.4.6), I only see the immediate superclass as being important
in determining access scope and no mention of superclass's superclass. This
would make the new behaviour incorrect, not to mention that it breaks a major
Java toolkit.
Comment 1 Philipe Mulet CLA 2003-02-22 04:52:16 EST
In M5, we had a regression causing invalid diagnosis of missing abstract method 
implementations. This got resolved in subsequent builds, in particular our 
latest integration build should behave properly.

Closing as duplicate, please reopen if your steps still demonstrate an issue, 
and then please provide steps to reproduce.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 31398 ***