On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 4:50 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:02 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> From: "ant elder" <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:16 AM >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: Folder and ZIP format contributions containing nested >>>> application JARs >>>> >>>> [[snip]] >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure if you're objecting to supporting zip contributions with >>>>> nested jars or that currently the change to do that doesn't >>>>> discriminated between zip and jar contributions so its possible to >>>>> nest jars in jars? >>>> >>>> I'm against adding nested jars to jar contributions. Zip contributions can >>>> have its own classloading scheme. >>>> >>> >>> Cool, me too. Like i said earlier this is work in progress and thats >>> just a whole that needs to be plugged, i'll go prevent that from being >>> possible. >>> >>> ...ant >>> >> >> Sorry, I overlooked this thread as I was out at the time. In summary >> then are you saying your preference is the following.... >> >> OK >> ----- >> >> mycontrib.ear >> myutil.jar >> >> mycontrib/ >> myutil.jar >> >> Not OK >> ----------- >> >> mycontrib.jar >> myutil.jar >> >> Simon >> > > Assuming you mean zip ("mycontrib.zip" not "mycontrib.ear") then yes, > and thats what the code 1.x and 2.x support now. > > ...ant >
oops, ears on the brain. Yes I had intended "mycontrib.zip" not "mycontrib.ear". Although mycontrib.ear as a contribution is also a valid scenario so OK ----- mycontrib.ear myutil.jar mycontrib.zip myutil.jar mycontrib/ myutil.jar Not OK ----------- mycontrib.jar myutil.jar Seems ok to me. Simon
