This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 75476 - Implementation dependency does not work
Summary: Implementation dependency does not work
Status: VERIFIED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: apisupport
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Project (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Jesse Glick
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-04-25 11:10 UTC by Tomas Danek
Modified: 2006-10-23 16:39 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Tomas Danek 2006-04-25 11:10:54 UTC
NetBeans IDE Dev (Build 200604241800)
1.6.0-rc; Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM 1.6.0-rc-b66
Windows XP version 5.1 running on x86
en_US (nb); Cp1252

-------------------------------
STEPS TO REPRODUCE:
1) clear userdir
2) create module suite
3) create in it moduleA and moduleB
4) add dependency in moduleB, moduleB depends moduleA, edit it and change to
implementaion dep.
5) in moduleA create class NewClassA
6) in moduleB create class FooClass
7) in FooClass, try to use NewClassA, CC does not work.
8) try to build moduleA -> BUILD OK
9) now try tu build while suite ->

C:\suite1\moduleB\src\org\yourorghere\moduleb\FooClass.java:20: cannot find symbol
symbol  : class NewClassA
location: class org.yourorghere.moduleb.FooClass
    NewClassA a = new NewClassA();
->BUILD FAILED

reproducible on my WIN XP, and also Zajo's Linux. A regression?
Comment 1 Martin Krauskopf 2006-04-25 11:37:27 UTC
Maybe you omit 4.5?

4.5) Check "Include API Packages in Classpath" to specify compile-dependency
Comment 2 Tomas Danek 2006-04-25 11:57:20 UTC
So as far as i understand it now, by selecting Implemention dependency all
packeges became API packages, and they need to be added to classpath
*explicitly* by "Include API Packages in Classpath" checkbox. Together with
#73768 it was confusing for me. Sorry and thanks for offline explanation Martine.
Comment 3 Jesse Glick 2006-04-25 15:39:50 UTC
x