On Wed, 8 May 2002 22:33, Peter Donald wrote: > > Yep. Looking at what I was planning, it will be a fair bit simpler if I > > axe the antlib/extension split sooner rather than later. If we're happy > > with this model, I'll make the changes. > > +1 from me. However we are going to have to enhance the > ExtensionManager/LibraryManager so that it does caching. ie We need to > cache the name/version/spec of each library outside library so that we > don't have to scan all the manifests which can be a costly operation. > Everytime a jar changes, is added or disapears we update the cache file and > go from there.
Um, not sure what you mean. Sounds like a persistent cache, containing the extension info for each jar? -- Adam -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
