Hi Jürgen, > yes, the way how extensions are loaded has changed a little bit. > Related to this change the search of dependent jar becomes more > important. Extensions are now loaded with their own classloader and > you have to specify dependent jars in the manifest file of your > extension jar. I see!
> I can assume that in your case your ext jar depends on some scripting > framework jars and that they are not found automatically. As I am using the OOo scripting framework itself there is the dependeny to "program/classes/ScriptFramework.jar", which is OOo's "stock" scripting framework. > Sounds like a problem and we have to think about it. I am only > guessing but it seems that we need something special handling for this > kind of scripting extensions. Well, if the class loader honors all OOo supplied jars (i.e. all jars in the "classes" subdirectory) as previously, then this would not be a problem. How would I state OOo deployed jars in the manifest file (i.e. to point to "program/classes/ScriptFramework.jar" wherever the "program" dir resides on a filesystem? (Sorry, if this is a rooky question, but I have not stumbled over that yet, or my memory fades already... ;) ) > you should submit an issue for that problem. Should I assign it to someone already? Thanks! ---rony P.S.: As a sidenote: it would be possible with the help of Apache's upcoming BSF 3.0 (in beta at the moment) to employ "javax.script" (introduced with Java 6) on earlier versions of Java (BSF 3.0 is compiled for Java 4). This would have the benefit that the number of usable scripting languages for OOo would be enhanced tremendeously. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
