On Jul 31, 2007, at 8:44 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
I'm running some TCK tests, now. Assuming things look good, I'd
like to commit to 2.0. Any objections? We could do nothing and
require users to create a geronimo deployment plan which hides
these same classes, instead. However, I'd like to make this
scenario work out-of-the-box...
+1 I agree this would be good for 2.0. Pluto 1.2 uses spring to
configure itself so I experienced some of these problems first hand
while setting up the new dynamic console framework. Like you say, in
most cases users can probably work around it with hidden-class
filters or arranging their modules in a certain way. But that's not
entirely straight forward and can limit their options with respect to
how their application can be deployed. Spring applications should
work out of the box.
Best wishes,
Paul
