Hi,
> > The real question here is if
> >
> > "Foo" == "Foo#*[*:*]"
>
> The answer is yes <"Foo" == "Foo#*[*:*]">.
Good :)
> > The spec says ("Foo", null, null) == "Foo#-[-]".
> >
> > I would have preferred that the specification said
> >
> > ("Foo", null, null) == "Foo#*[*:*]"
> >
> > but there it is (and I think it's a mistake).
>
> This is just a convention we had to choose to define the meaning of a null
> value in a NEED permission.
>
> We had 2 possibilities:
>
> (1) null in NEED permission means "-"
>
> or
>
> (2) null in NEED permission means "*"
>
> We finally implemented (1) but I don't think this was a mistake. In fact,
> I
> see more precise to associate "null" with "nothing allowed" than "null"
> with
> "all allowed".
>
> Okay I stop now, it is just my opinion.
I agree that this is a convention.
It's just I would have preferred null == "*", but that also is my opinion :)
Luis, many thanks for your thoughts and opinions.
Jeremy, I'll go and fix the test cases and MX4J along these directions.
I think MX4J was mistakenly interpreting the null while was doing right
when parsing, so I'll fix this along the lines of the RI.
I'm also going to fix the partial wildcarding of methods.
I'll run the MX4J tests against J2SE 5 as well.
Simon
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.