It isn't so simple. You can rename all the .rbj to .class, and JET may compile them successfully, but how do they get loaded up? The JRuby classloader will still be expecting .rbj and doing it's own defineClass() on bytecode, and not native code.
Before we make any decision on this, I just want to make sure that we have a *technical* reason why we have to have .rbj extension? P.S. I am sure that I am winning the Devil's award for being his valiant advocate this month. :) Peter -----Original Message----- From: John Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 8:44 PM To: dev@jruby.codehaus.org Subject: Re: [jruby-dev] Compile to .rbj instead of .class? ----- "Charles Oliver Nutter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I appreciate your concerns, really. It's unfortunate that so many > tools and libraries expect .class, but that's the way it is. > > I'm still on the fence. You know...thinking about this a little more...I feel sort of silly for worrying about it. It's really a simple ruby one-liner to rename .rbj files to .class files. That said, I suppose it could get pretty complicated if they were packaged into jars. Still, seems like someone should be able to easily construct a prepare_for_jet.rb script and make it public... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
