From owner-freebsd-java Wed Sep 9 12:02:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA00549 for freebsd-java-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:02:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (sri-gw.MT.net [206.127.105.141]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA00542 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:02:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA25244; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:02:35 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA17318; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:02:34 -0600 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:02:34 -0600 Message-Id: <199809091902.NAA17318@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: alk@pobox.com Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Daemonising a Java Process: Possible? In-Reply-To: <13814.52920.941496.351765@compound.east> References: <13813.27934.606377.693358@compound.east> <199809082154.WAA00626@fdy2.demon.co.uk> <199809091441.IAA13097@mt.sri.com> <13814.41946.450831.565822@compound.east> <199809091609.KAA14035@mt.sri.com> <13814.45333.5280.235552@compound.east> <199809091655.KAA14592@mt.sri.com> <13814.52920.941496.351765@compound.east> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > : > Specifically, I have a large code on which javac will loop in the > : > presence of most kinds of syntax errors. > : > : Loop? I still don't follow? > > Loop, as in 'for (;;) continue;' -- with sprinkles. I never get a > stack overflow, so I don't think it's recurring infinitely. > > : Are you compiling all of your sources with > : one invocation of javac? > > No. > > : Ahh, none of our sources have any circular dependencies for obvious > : reasons. :) > > I must ask, what obvious reasons? There's no way to guarantee correctness with circular dependencies, and fixing circular dependencies is almost always a trivial (but tedious) excercise. I have yet to see a design that couldn't be more safely shown to work better without circular dependencies, and have bitten too many times by things not doing what you expect them to do even though you are *SURE* the build was done correctly. > There is no way to encapsulate mutual recursion between objects of > distinct classes without a circular interface dependency, unless you > are willing to resort to reflection/reification -- which I am not for > reasons of readability. Forgive me for sounding naive, but I don't understand the problem. Why can't you use interfaces to avoid the dependency problem? That's what we've done, and it's turned out to be give us both a 'more effecient' build platform, but also a cleaner design as we've extended it. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message