Peter,
This and the other email. I like a lot. I think you'll have trouble with <join>, but you knew I'd say that ;-)
The multiple "foo" scenario, which is a real namespace issue, could it not be address java-package style? :
org.apache.avalon.fooservice.FooClassLoaderNode
We could actually have an interface called ClassLoaderNode that a real class could impl. It has in it some getters that pheonix could use for semi-hard coded checking against the assembly manifest? ... similar to <required> functionality of manifest. It is class loaded by full class name via the getClassLoader() as you described.
Regards,
- Paul H
Hi,
One thing I forgot to mention was how Blocks aquire the ClassLoaders. I propose that we add another method to BlockContext interface, namely
ClassLoader getClassLoader(String name)
This raises an interesting question though. How should a Block declare that it needs a ClassLoader named "foo" and "foo" must contain classes X, Y and Z? Should it declare that?
My initial though was that you could add another section to the BlockInfo file like
<classloaders>
<classloader name="foo">
<description>
This ClassLoader must contain classes X, Y and Z. It is part of the foo API and we use it to do "Something".
</description>
<required classname="com.biz.ClassToCheckFor"/>
</classloader>
</classloaders>
Then I realized - what would happen if 2 Blocks declared that they depended on ClassLoaders named "foo" but which had different contents. So in this case it would be required that you map the application-wide name into a block-local name ... which seems like overkill/flexability syndrome.
So options that I could think of are;
1. ignore the issue and make it a requirement that Block writers document it so that assemblers can build it
2. have basic structures in blockinfo but keep names global
3. Same as 3 but we map classloader names from global namespace to application local namespace.
Thoughts?
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
