Is this new CL thing something that I can look forward to in version 2.0
(that would be awesome because I am deep in other XML stuff as well)?
-----Original Message-----
From: marc fleury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 12:14 PM
To: jBoss
Subject: RE: [jBoss-User] jBoss question
The class loader for the tree building classes is the system one. So yes it
will conflict in the current version (in fact it won't happen period).
However with the new CL proposal from Rickard (another genius idea) you will
not see the same classes as part of the idea is that the personality
projection of the container is based on the class loader visibility that is
grained at the level of the jar. Each bean can require a different
structure from teh container including the XML parser by just specifying
what classes to use.
marc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Geoff Hill
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 4:32 AM
> To: jBoss
> Subject: Re: [jBoss-User] jBoss question
>
>
> Rickard �berg wrote:
>
> > Second, your choice of parser might conflict with what EJBOss 1.0 uses,
> > which is ProjectX. Can you try and use the supplied parser instead? Does
> > that remove this problem?
> >
>
> Not a very good solution :-( There are many good reasons to use
> Xerces and not
> sun xml, not the least of which are DOM2/SAX2, which are really
> used for server
> side applications to allow you to not have the entire DOM tree in
> memory at the
> same time.
>
> Since this is probably what you would wish to do in an EJB, maybe a better
> solution would be for jboss to use JAXP to make its parser into a
> plugin and
> therefore not interfere with anyone's beans. This should be
> quite simple as long
> as you are just doing simple parsing.
>
> Actually now that I think about it the question arises as to
> whether 2 beans
> which are deployed which contain different versions of the
> org.w3c.dom classes
> will interfere with each other? Or any other beans which come
> with "outdated
> versions" of utility classes? Anyone know?
>
> Regards
> Geoff Hill.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
