On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:58:51 -0500, Gregg, John E. wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm having a little trouble with the fact that commons-id's > ReadOnlyResourceStateImpl uses ClassLoader.getSystemResourceAsStream > to load > the config file containing MAC addresses. Is that intentional?
It was intentional since I was thinking the commons-id.jar and the configuration xml should be deployed to the jre/lib/ext directory - Thought process was: this way all classloaders/contexts use the same file/MAC addresses regardless of application isolation. This is much less important for the ReadOnlyResourceStateImpl, but important for the ReadWriteStateImpl. Seperate applications or even jre instances (as in vertical clusters) should all use the same configuration. The real issue is that there's no good way I can think to get a device wide mutex/or lock. I'm thinking of using the locking mechanism from sandbox-transaction (a file based locking mechanism) ReadOnlyResourceStateImpl was a mistake on my part. I thought EJB containers would be alright with non-explicit i/o, such as ClassLoader.getSystemResourceAsStream but then I was reminded that accessing classloaders is also a no-no. Do you find this implementation useful?...let me know, I was going to remove it possibly. > When I'm > testing my app with Maven, the only thing in the system class loader's path > is Maven's forehead jar. Perhaps I can/should change that, but it causes my > test to fail because my config file isn't found. yes. I think there's a way in Maven to say that a resource is a "test resource" only, but I don't know how. I've actually got a comment in the project.xml for [id] that says something like "I want this to be a test only resource, but don't know how" > If I use > this.getClass().getResourceAsStream(), things are fine. I can understand > why the system class loader is used, however, for that particular file-- > because it's based on where the app is deployed and therefore is not > portable, like the rest of the app is. I was reading "When Singleton's aren't Singleton's", and so having the System classloader load the uuid stuff was what I was going for I think, although that's from memory. > If you think it should change to use > the app's class loader, I'll submit a patch. If you think it should stay > the way it is, I might consider refactoring the load() method to use > inversion of control so I can better test with mock objects and not worry > about environmental concerns. If I do that I'll submit a patch. > After knowing the rationale I had followed, let me know if you think there is a better way. I'm still learning, so maybe I've missed on this. I know the package and class organization is gross. I'm open to suggestions there as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
