Re: Revisiting "lost codebases"

Mark Brouwer wrote:
> I haven't given it much though but I doubt whether a digest calculated
> based on the bytecode is a proper mechanism for specifying a version of
> a class. I'm no bytecode expert but I think you can have a 100%
> compatible class definitions for which the bytecode can differ due to
> different compilers, etc.

        I thought of that as well. I think for now this is a reasonable
limitation until I find a better way (if one exists). However the class
version is generated, I suspect that the original owner of the code will
compile the class once and pass it around to other nodes. Those nodes
in-turn are unlikely to recompile it. As such it is unlikely that one
will run across the same version of the same class having different
bytecode. I guess we'll discover whether this assumption is true when I
try running "in the wild".

Gili


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Getting Started:     http://www.jini.org/wiki/Category:Getting_Started
Community Web Site:  http://jini.org
jini-users Archive:  http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/jini-users.html
Unsubscribing:       email "signoff JINI-USERS"  to [email protected]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGPwSvIC8Z3eiKRrQRAopQAJ9Crd8yyG/juOLsUCTwh/Ud0prUAACgif/5
VHGhRn8LKu+wsEzO6C0RSKY=
=Alcn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----