On 9/29/05, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I want to emphasize my discomfort with harcoding a commons package
> into these loaders as it ultimately takes waya control from the user. As
> long as we can back this out and do a proper exclusion list in a
> configurable plan, then I am cool with it.
Could you explain what you mean here? I think we've already seen that
in the case of commons logging, if you give that control to the user
(by exposing a list including commons logging) and they exercise it
(by removing commons logging from the list and including their own
commons logging JAR), they get a ClassCastException -- which is to
say, it doesn't work include your own commons logging and try to use
it instead of Geronimo's version. I think the only way to work around
that is a much more detailed restructuring of our ClassLoader
hierarchy. Do you have another proposal for "making commons logging
overridable"?
Thanks,
Aaron
