Aleksei Valikov wrote:
> Hi.
>
>> The changes for issue 64 looks good to me (besides the following one
>> small bug),
>
> Would you mind correcting it?
Will do. I just wanted to make sure that you'd agree with the change.
>
> > but because the branch contains fixes for both 64 and 62,
>> and because I have a compatibility concern about issue 62, I cannot
>> merge this branch into the trunk right away.
>
> > My only concern is the compatibility. I believe we cannot generate
> > public methods that are not in the spec.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but the spec just says typesafe enums should be
> implemented as [BLOCH]. Which is quite vague. I think typesafe enum
> interface is not define in the spec. Am I wrong here?
I thought there's a part that actually talks about the generated method
one by one with its signature. And I think TCK is probably testing those.
I'll wait for the spec guys to chime in.
>> Would it be possible to do issue 62 as a plugin?
>
> Well, yes, but it would be a bit ugly.
>
> Let me know about you decision.
For now maybe I should just merge your fix for issue 64 manually. Is
that OK?
--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi
Sun Microsystems kohsuke.kawaguchi_at_sun.com