> Isn't the term child-first a misnomer? A class loader can't be a child of > itself? Can it? >
Exactly my point, if you are looking from the perspective of the initiating class loader. > IMO, the term "parent-last" is an improvement over child-first, > "parent-second" being even a little more precise. > Parent-second is indeed more accurate. But that assumes searching children would otherwise be an option for the second step, making searching the parent the third (and last) step. Maybe "local-first" is best. Mike Colbert --- Ceki G�lc� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Isn't the term child-first a misnomer? A class loader can't be a child of > itself? Can it? > > IMO, the term "parent-last" is an improvement over child-first, > "parent-second" being even a little more precise. > > > At 19:37 5/4/2005, robert burrell donkin wrote: > >On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 07:58 -0700, Mike Colbert wrote: > > > ><snip> > > > > > As an aside, isn't "child-first" really a misnomer and it's more like > > > "parent-last"? Assuming the parent is at the top of the hierarchy, > > child-first > > > implies (to me), that the heirarchy is walked downwardly from the > > parent, not > > > upwardly from the bottom. > > > >oh, if only it were all so simple :) > > > >real life classloader hierarchies can (and regularly do) mix the two > >types. so, it's really only possible to talk about the behaviour of a > >single classloader. > > > >- robert > > -- > Ceki G�lc� > > The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
