🚀 go-pugleaf

OOOOOHHH NOOOOO :)

well, if that's the way then gotto do it i guess....
thanks
ali.



"Greg Hamer" <ghamer@corp.netzero.net> wrote in message
news:8q6b2h$a8m2@bornews.borland.com...
> The only  workaround that I have found for JDK 1.1 is to remove all the
> listeners. This means never using anonymous inner classes for listeners so
> you have a reference to the listener that you can use in the
removeListener
> call.
>
> "Ali Demir" <demir.4@osu.edu> wrote in message news:39c67bb5_1@dnews...
> > The problem is I have to create a program that runs on JDK1.1 as well as
> > 1.3, so I cannot rely on weak references at this time.
> > Thank you.
> > Ali.
> >
> >
> > "Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <tor.wilhelmsen@sds.no> wrote in message
> > news:ubsxmgo42.fsf@sds.no...
> > > John P. McGrath <JPMcGrath@fast.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > There are a few bugs where Swing holds onto object references, but
are
> > > > you sure that is what is happening?  In most cases I have seen that
> this
> > > > occurs, it is possible to tell Swing to forget the reference.
> > >
> > > I believe 1.3.0 fixed most of these by using "weak" references
> > > internally. (The java.lang.ref.* stuff.)
> >
> >
>
>