On 26 August 2014 13:40, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Duncan Jones <djo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi Benedikt, >> >> On 26 August 2014 12:53, <brit...@apache.org> wrote: >> > Author: britter >> > Date: Tue Aug 26 11:53:51 2014 >> > New Revision: 1620579 >> > >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1620579 >> > Log: >> > Add fixme regarding a JDK 1.3 workaround >> > >> > Modified: >> > >> >> commons/proper/lang/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/lang3/reflect/FieldUtils.java >> > >> > Modified: >> commons/proper/lang/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/lang3/reflect/FieldUtils.java >> > URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/lang/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/lang3/reflect/FieldUtils.java?rev=1620579&r1=1620578&r2=1620579&view=diff >> > >> ============================================================================== >> > --- >> commons/proper/lang/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/lang3/reflect/FieldUtils.java >> (original) >> > +++ >> commons/proper/lang/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/lang3/reflect/FieldUtils.java >> Tue Aug 26 11:53:51 2014 >> > @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@ public class FieldUtils { >> > public static Field getField(final Class<?> cls, final String >> fieldName, final boolean forceAccess) { >> > Validate.isTrue(cls != null, "The class must not be null"); >> > Validate.isTrue(StringUtils.isNotBlank(fieldName), "The field >> name must not be blank/empty"); >> > + // FIXME is this workaround still needed? lang requires Java 6 >> > // Sun Java 1.3 has a bugged implementation of getField hence >> we write the >> > // code ourselves >> >> Perhaps this is something to discuss on the ML. If we have sufficient >> test coverage in that area, we could just remove the code and check it >> still builds successfully using 1.6. Unless anyone shouts out with a >> good reason why the code should stay. >> > > It seems reasonable to remove code that depends on Java 1.3 behavior!
That is not the issue; the code does _not_ depend on the behaviour of Java 1.3. The issue is that a work-round was added for problematic behaviour detected in Java 1.3 Once the work-round is in place the code will work equally well whether or not the JVM bug is fixed. Are we 100% sure that no later JVM implementations have the same issue? > Gary > > >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Duncan >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
