Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
[deleted comment]
Original comment by pejob...@gmail.com
on 20 Sep 2013 at 2:15
There are more of these calls, I (or tests) didn't spot them because of legacy
code which automagically set "accessibility" to "true" if a class is generated
from beanshell code.
This has been removed with rev#135 (in v2.1 branch). This revealed some more
flaws. The major drawback of the change is compatibility - you can achieve the
old behaviour if you explictly switch "accessibility" on. But legacy code
couldn't be changed :(
One workaround is preserving the old behaviour for constructors: If the script
defines a class with a protected constructor creating an instance would fail
now. This is one use case I found by googling (and the only one - because of
the lack of documentation for class creation in beanshell - surly because of
the pure implementation). So the checkin contains a "fix" for this by setting
the constructor(s) public - if "accessibility" is off, which is the default now.
#$%& wtf, great mess..
Original comment by pejob...@gmail.com
on 27 Sep 2013 at 3:33
One more thing: Initializing final fields from constructor failed, I can't see
if this is also caused by driving with seat belts now ("accessibility" =
false). Could be since setting final fields is allowed in the old mode. Fixed
also by r135, change is
http://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/source/diff?spec=svn135&r=135&format=side&pa
th=/branches/v2.1/src/bsh/Variable.java
Original comment by pejob...@gmail.com
on 27 Sep 2013 at 3:42
Issue 97 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by pejob...@gmail.com
on 10 Feb 2014 at 9:55
Issue 98 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by pejob...@gmail.com
on 10 Feb 2014 at 2:58
Issue 99 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by pejob...@gmail.com
on 20 Feb 2014 at 12:12
This change makes the accessibility.bsh fail in line 87 when accessing a static
public member (in Java 1.6.0_45 ) ( mypackage.Accessibility1.supersfield4 )
Original comment by snap...@googlemail.com
on 4 Jan 2015 at 7:00
Is this really because of the changes here? There is a comment over the
mentioned line: "why is this broken?".
Sounds for me like this was broken before (the script was never changed after
the initial fork).
Original comment by pejob...@gmail.com
on 12 Jan 2015 at 8:33
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
pejob...@gmail.com
on 20 Sep 2013 at 12:14