Using default implementation, I can compile Illegal Extending Class which is mistaking access modifiers or return-types.

[bitter_fox]

Oh, It was caused by that reason.I've understood.

Thank you for the fix.
I've just got it.

Regards,
bitter_fox

2012/2/9 Maurizio Cimadamore <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com>

> Right - the check for compatible implementation is currently excluding
> default methods - the reason is a flag mismatch - default methods are not
> marked with ACC_ABSTRACT anymore - as a result those compiler checks need
> to be updated to check for ACC_DEFENDER instead.
>
> I will push a fix soon.
>
> Maurizio
>
>
>
> On 08/02/12 14:21, bitter_fox wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Using default implementation, I can compile Illegal Extending Class which
>> is mistaking access modifiers or return-types.
>>
>> Compiler is the newest binary snapshot.
>>
>> For instance:
>> interface I
>> {
>>     void method() default {} // method is pubilc
>> }
>>
>> class C1
>> {
>>     void method() {} // method is package private
>> }
>>
>> class C2 extends C1 implements I
>> {
>>     // this would be illegal, but I can compile this.
>> }
>>
>> I i = new C2();
>> i.method(); // this calling causes IllegalAccessError
>>
>> The other pattern:
>> interface I
>> {
>>     String method() default
>>     {
>>         return "str";
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> class C1
>> {
>>     public Integer method()
>>     {
>>         return 0;
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> class C2 extends C1 implements I
>> {
>>     // this extending would be illegal
>> }
>>
>> C2 c2 = new C2();
>> C1 c1 = c2;
>> I i = c2;
>>
>> System.out.println(c2.method()**); // 0
>> System.out.println(c1.method()**); // 0
>> System.out.println(i.method())**; // str
>>
>> Was this already known?
>>
>> Regards,
>> bitter_fox
>>
>>
>