|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 01:05 AM EDT |
He might want to understand the ramifications if Google had chosen different
names for their packages. The fact is, Google could not avoid using those
names, even though there's no such thing as inheritance for packages.
If Google had used some other names, programs written to use those packages
would not work, because the system would not know what the program was
requesting. And any hypothetical "translation" program that could
translate one set of names to the other would, of necessity, contain a copy of
the names Oracle believes it owns.
Just as a French-English dictionary must contain both French and English words,
any hypothetical "Oracle-Google" Java translation program would
contain both Oracle's name and Google's, making Google's use of those names an
unavoidable technical necessity.
Therefore, using the names directly was the only sensible technical option,
given that there was no way to avoid using the same names in some capacity.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 04:45 AM EDT |
In Java you often extend core classes to provide better, or spcialised versions
of core objects, for example you may inherit from String to get
MultiligualString.
If the API was different for String, then the API of you extended class would be
different, hence, chnaging the API would actually no just break your class
(which you could fix by calling the right API methods) but also break anyone
using your class.
I bleieve the Judge is looking for reasons why Google HAD to use exactly the
same method names and signatures in Adnroid, as to do otherwise would have
caused mayhem.
What Oracle is trying to do is turn the world on its head. It originally wanted
everyone to stick to the API spec as closely as possible, and even once sued
Microsoft for changing the spec .. and here they are arguing that Google should
have used a different API if they didn;t want to get sued ...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|