Nic Ferrier wrote: >Erwin Bolwidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Why don't you use the javax.naming abstractions? I know Tomcat uses it >>with success. It is very extensible >> > >Using JNDI is not an option. > [...]
>>and it seems better than changing the API of a standard API >>class... >> >I didn't propose that, see the next point. > >>you couldn't compile the code (without pre-processing) on >>any other implementation of Java's standard APIs; that doesn't feel >>quite right. >> >I could compile the code. > >What I said I wanted to do was change the FileURLConnection >class. This is an implementation class in package: > > gnu.java.net.protocol.file > Alright, my mistake. But note that I sent this e-mail to you personally, and not to classpath. I don't follow classpath as closely as I would like, one reason being that probably clicked on too many Sun licenses to contribute much. And since I e-mailed you privately in the past, I thought it would be alright to just mail you my comment. I didn't intend for the reply to be Cc:-ed to classpath... Best, Erwin _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
