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?
But we already need a separate classloader to allow classes to be loaded and defined at runtime (generated invokers, JIT-compiled stuff, etc), so that's not a big requirement.
The benefits you state are pretty good ones though...which is why I'm waffling on this. I feel like there should be better identification for the files as being compiled Ruby rather than "normal" compiled Java, but there's not really any good technical reasons for a different extension.
It just feels more right to me for some reason. - Charlie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
