There's no need for insults, David. Have some perspective. I've been nothing but civil and respectful (even after you presumed to know what I do and don't understand).
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:12 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com> wrote: > I'm not talking about a parent/child relationship at all. I'm talking > about > parent, child, AND sibling class loaders. You're presenting a very > simplistic view here, but in a real application server, things can get a > lot > more complex. A class loader for JAR of an implementation of an API might > not be visible to anyone else; however the API might be visible from > several > other deployments. And any deployment who has access to an API can pass > data to any other deployment. It's not as simple as you make it out to be > - > there's not just two use cases. > Non-hierarchical class loaders fall under a) in my book--"code that should probably be redesigned." But having used WebSphere in a past life, I realize that's too much to ask. We should probably just wait for ephemerons. I think they alleviate the need for this altogether. With ephemerons, you could have a map of Class -> [some value] where [some value] doesn't prevent Class from being reclaimed. If Class if reclaimed, the reference to [some value] is dropped, too. Bob
