I appreciate your position, and I totally agree. Just look at the number
of deprecated methods we have collected. I did a pass during 1.2 to
strip that number down a bit (especially since many were over a year
old) but we're definitely erring on the side of caution when it comes to
user-visible changes.
In this case, I think it has almost always been a mistake to use
"require" or "load" like this, and in probably every case it would
eventually fail in confusing ways. So I think we're in safe territory
here, closing a hole we never should have left open.
- Charlie
Joseph Athman wrote:
No, I don't think personally I have any code that would be effected, I'm
just thinking it might be good to formalize a process for when these
kinds of issues come up. Since the behavior was never exactly specified
I don't think this problem can be considered a "bug" that is being
fixed. It's more of a "this was never good, so now we are completely
stopping it". But I think it would be nice to give people that are
depending on this behavior at least 1 official release to fix their
code. I'm just trying to be devil's advocate a little.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Is this going to affect code of yours? I suppose it could be reduced
to a warning, but it's pretty hard to fix the issue I resolved
without breaking this behavior. And for what it's worth it was never
really advocated or recommended, though I know that's little
consolation.
Joseph Athman wrote:
Is there any way to deprecate the current frowned upon usage of
require and release a new point release of JRuby before 1.2? It
seems a little harsh to simply remove something that used to
work (even poorly) without giving people a nice way of checking
their code for this problem. Rails seems to do this nicely. If
you can run the latest minor release of rails without
deprecation warnings then you can likely upgrade to the next
major release without much pain.
Joe
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Thomas E Enebo
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
wrote:
> Stephen Bannasch wrote:
>>
>> At 8:38 PM -0600 2/16/09, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm working on
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-3214 and I
think we
>>> need to ratchet down what load and require do when loading
.class files.
>>> They've started to get overloaded for loading an individual
Java class,
>>> which was never the intended purpose. This generally
circumvents normal Java
>>> classloading and classpath and usually causes things to
break,
since you can
>>> easily load in a single class but fail to load its
dependencies.
>>>
>>> So I propose the following:
>>>
>>> load and require shall only be used for loading .jar
files (as
an analog
>>> to extensions), .rb files, or .class files that represent
compiled .rb
>>> files.
>>>
>>> The problem in the bug is that it tries first to do a normal
class load,
>>> which sees the current directory's "baz" class and loads it
before the
>>> "baz.class" in ../foo. When normal Java classloading is
taken
out of the
>>> equation, it works correctly.
>>>
>>> This also will affect classloading somewhat; since a given
classloader
>>> can only load a given package + class once, and with
Ruby load
paths there
>>> could potentially be multiple compiled .rb files with
the same
Java package
>>> and class, each precompiled .rb file will be loaded in
its own
child
>>> classloader and executed.
>>
>> Are you proposing any changes to how require operates when
loading a jar
>> that implements BasicLibraryService.basicLoad?
>>
>> This service is normally used to add Ruby modules and
classes. This
>> technique is used in the java/jruby versions of RubyGems like
hpricot and
>> redcloth.
>
> No, this would remain the same. The only behavior that would
change is
> using:
>
> require 'some.java.Class'
>
> as a way of getting that class loaded and callable. It
will now
raise an
> error saying you should use 'java_import' to load it in (I
could
have said
> "import" but "java_import" is probably more likely to work
in all
cases,
> since rake defines an import method and a few people have run
into issues
> with that).
>
> e.g.
>
> $ jruby -rjava -e "load
'build/classes/jruby/org/jruby/RubyString.class'"
> -e:1:in `load': use `java_import' to load normal Java classes
(LoadError)
> from -e:1
+1
I am sure someone has tried using it, but for it to still be
working
for them they ended up solving the class loading using a
different
way.
-Tom
--
Blog: http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ThomasEEnebo
Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> ,
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
