Hi, I'm working on this rewriting. Should I change the package?? Seems
like no, these are going to be sort of deprecated anyway, only there for
backwards compatibility, so we should keep the package the same.
Agreed?
Thanks
david jencks
On 2001.07.26 18:48:54 -0400 Toby Allsopp wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 03:42:09PM -0700, Jason Dillon wrote:
> > I am working on a build system proof of concept, that integrates cvs
> modules
> > as sources instead of binaries. Things are going well, but I have run
> into
> > a few module dependency issues. Currently there is only one that is
> causing
> > a problem.
> >
> > There is a circular dependency between jboss and jbosspool:
> >
> > 1) JDBCDataSourceLoader(jboss) depends on
> JDBCPoolDataSource(jbosspool)
> >
> > 2) XADataSourceLoader(jboss) depends on XAPoolDataSource(jbosspool)
> >
> > I suggest moving the *Loader classes to the jbosspool module (with _no_
> > package name changes) as the simple short-term solution to this
> problem.
>
> That seems reasonable. The *DataSourceLoader MBeans should be rewritten
> to be simple wrappers for ConnectionFactoryLoader, at which point they
> should live in jbosscx.
>
> Toby.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
