Semantically, the extension shouldn't matter to those tools, but practically, I don't see how the existing tools would pick up a Java class file that doesn't end in .class (unless someone were to write an adapter for every such tool to treat a .rbj as a .class).
Let me turn the table around: if the JRuby compiler/classloader can deal with any extension, why does it need a custom extension? :) Peter -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Oliver Nutter Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [jruby-dev] Compile to .rbj instead of .class? Peter K Chan wrote: > Charlie, > So, I see the semantic mismatch, but what is the technical reason for > having a separate extension? > > I see some benefits of using the standard .class extension, such as > being able to compile JRuby compiled bytecode into native code (e.g. using the > JET compiler), or to run an obfuscator on the class files (imagine how > confused if someone were to try to decompile JRuby code to Java...). Besides, > wouldn't this require a separate classloader to load the byte code? One question here...if the file format was identical, why does the extension matter to these tools? - Charlie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
