Costin Manolache wrote:
> And if the TCK signature tests pass - that's a bug in the tests :-).
> We shouldn't touch the method signatures in servlet API.
Having read everyone's comments and having thought some more about this
during today, my current plan is:
- fix any non-generics warnings in the spec code
- commit the fixes
- fix the generics warnings but don't commit - I can make a patch available
on p.o.a if anyone is interested
- fix the warnings in the rest of the code base.
Mark
> Costin
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Remy Maucherat <
remm@...> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 08:27 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> I am leaning towards 4 on the basis that
>>> a) This is trunk, not a release branch
>>> b) This option generates no warnings
>>> c) I assume the spec will start using generics at some point (maybe in
>> 3.0?)
>>> If modifying the spec interfaces seems like a step too far then 3 would
>> be
>>> my next choice.
>> There are signature tests in the TCK :( I don't think that will pass.
>>
>> Rémy
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-help@...
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-help@...
