Bill Dortch wrote:
Re: mangled names, ah, you mean *Ruby* Ruby code, not Java Ruby code. But do you mean for internal libs (site-ruby) or apps? For apps, you can just include the real jar in the classpath (which is the situation I have, hence the potential version conflict).
Yes, I mean ruby ruby, and I mean for internal libs in general. But even the external apps/libs case is problematic, since we don't ship with any of those libraries in an unmangled form. It would be nice if apps/libs could piggyback.
Of course, I don't think we have jarjar culling unused classes either, which might be useful and which would make piggybacking impossible and perhaps less desirable in light of potential size reduction.
- Charlie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
