I got it, so we have to use jdt. What about using a separate classloader to load JDT ( child or sibling of server classloader for example ), so any jdt in webapps won't be visible ?
Well - if you are comfortable maintaining JDT changes, I don't have a problem, it just doesn't feel right. For small things that we also change ( like modeler and maybe logger ), it is ok, but jdt seems like a large thing. Costin On 6/8/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, > My understanding was that the main reason is that it's better / faster / > less leaky than > javac - is this correct ? Is it still true for JDK1.5 ? Could we just use > javac as default - and > in case of 'conflicts' ? There's also another reason: if we use JDT then we don't require users to have the complete JDK, only a JRE. This is a big deal (perhaps even more important than the technical / performance benefits) from a licensing perspective, especially for people who repackage / redistribute Tomcat as part of their products. Yoav --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
