Re: Revisiting "lost codebases"

cowwoc wrote:
> 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".

In open source Java applications, with mobile code, you should always think
about the issue of "standard interfaces" and "standard base classes", which
might be released in source form on the web, and then used to build distributed
applications with mobile code.  I don't know enough about what you've done to
say whether there is a real issue, or not.

Gregg Wonderly

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]