Remy Maucherat wrote:
Hans Bergsten wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
remm 2003/01/22 03:40:00
Modified: jasper2/src/share/org/apache/jasper JspC.java
Log:
- Fix package name generation.
- Default to "org.apache.jsp" package name.
Why do you need a default package name? Doesn't this make it harder
to to use, since the package structure no longer matches the directory
structure?
Because if the user doesn't set a package, it won't work with JDK 1.4.
So I'm forcing one by default; I know the structure won't match.
That's what I thought as well, at first. But it's not the case. What
doesn't work in JDK 1.4 is to use classes from the "default package"
(i.e. no package) in a class that is part of a package. But there's
nothing wrong with having a class in the default package per se if
it doesn't get imported or used in another, packaged class; the
generated class is not used in another class, hence it doesn't have
to be in a package. Does that make sense? If not, I can elaborate.
When I wrote my patch, I also felt that a default package prefix was
a good idea, but I dropped it in the end due to the package/directory
structure mismatch. If it's really important to, you should also make
sure the class files are generated in a directory structure that starts
with "org/apache/jsp/"
I was wondering about that, actually, and thought this was inconsistent.
Yep, it is. While I was going down this road I added code in a few
places (forgot where) to also set the output dir for the class file.
But I realized after a while that the idea of a requiring a package was
flawed, so I removed it.
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gefion Software <http://www.gefionsoftware.com/>
Author of O'Reilly's "JavaServer Pages", covering JSP 1.2 and JSTL 1.0
Details at <http://TheJSPBook.com/>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
