I don't understand the details enough to make an informed recommendation, but I think introducing a new entry point is a good time to transition to the standard way (assuming it is standard).
We could add the backward-compatibility flag if needed after some testing to see what the breakage would be. - Brian On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Manuel Carrasco Moñino <[email protected]> wrote: > Following the discussion here: > https://gwt-review.googlesource.com/#/c/8150/2 > > What do you guys think about changing the way of how embedded jetty class > loader works? > > Options: > - leave it as current: a bunch of hacks to load certain classes at first > - modify it to use the standard way: first WEB-INF/lib then classpath > - a mix of both, so as the default is #2 but we maintain a flag for using > #1 > - more... ? > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "GWT Contributors" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAM28XAtaxEabPDFt-2CEFR154GOHcBYMj47BQOVXHUfqvbyGBw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAM28XAtaxEabPDFt-2CEFR154GOHcBYMj47BQOVXHUfqvbyGBw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CA%2B%2BRBT_2Y5CvyV-o5s1AOMY%2Bo2dGaWicwBFLPEJRFrMn7J%3DXZg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
