Community
Participate
Working Groups
Create the following files in a default package: A.java public class A implements W { public interface X { } public interface Y extends W { } public static class C extends B implements Y { } } B.java public class B implements A.X { } W.java public interface W { } Observe that B.java has a "hierarchy of type B is inconsistent" annotation on "B" of "public class B ...". There are no compilation errors in the task list. Remove class C from A.java. Observe that the annotation disappears from B.java.
This problem is fixed in 3.0M5. Its not critical so I don't think we'll backport the fix. Is that ok?
It's not critical but it's certainly annoying. As a user, I'd like to have it backported to the next service release for 2.1, considering that 3.0 won't see a release version for at least six months. I wouldn't worry about a UI problem but giving incorrect information to the user about program structure should be important enough. How big is the fix?
To be honest, its in code which has changed considerably over the last few months so we cannot simply copy the 'fixed' code over to 2.1. This problem will only show up when member types are extended/implemented & will only appear in the editor if quick fix is enabled. Relative to other problems, this isn't critical.
Ah, well. Go on and continue working on 3.0, maybe that'll be a few months earlier :))
Fixed in the 3.0 stream.
