thanks for the reply:

The changes that you suggest do not sort my problem. Even without the jars in the 
classpath the Beanshell cannot find the requested classes promptly enough. Also my 
code base is already quite large.

On another aspect, the invocation of the beanshell is done via the command:

Q:\Dir_1;Q:\dir_2;Q:\dir_3;Q:\dir_4;f:/Programs/emacs/site_lisp/jde/jde-2.2.9beta9.1/java/bsh
 
commands;c:/jdk1.3.1/lib/tools.jar;f:/Programs/emacs/site_lisp/jde/jde-2.2.9beta9.1/java/lib/checkstyle.jar;f:/Programs/emacs/site_lisp/jde/jde-2.2.9beta9.1/java/lib/jakarta-regexp.jar;f:/Programs/emacs/site_lisp/jde/jde-2.2.9beta9.1/java/lib/jde.jar;f:/Programs/emacs/site_lisp/jde/jde-2.2.9beta9.1/java/lib/bsh.jar
 


Does that mean that the Beanshell picks all the jars in that classpath as well for 
searching? In that case removing the extraneous jars from my classpath does not make 
any difference as they get picked up from the command

Am I right? Sorry for the ignorance, I am just trying to work this out well. Thanks


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kinnucan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:11 PM
> To: Elias Biris
> Cc: Paul Kinnucan; JDE List (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Speeding up the BeanShell?
> 
> 
> Elias Biris writes:
>  > Okdok. Attached is the report generated. thanks for the patience.
>  >
> 
> I notice in your report that you are using JDE 2.2.9beta9.1 
> but you have
> the jde.jar and bsh.jar for JDE 2.2.8 in your jde-global-classpath.
> This is not good, using an earlier version of the JDE's jar
> files with a a later version of the JDE. Further, there is no need 
> anyway for you to include either jar file in jde-global-classpath.
> Nor is there a need for you to include the JDK's rt.jar
> file in jde-global-classpath. rt.jar is autoamtically included
> in the vm's boot classpath. The JDE's source file searching
> command has to search the classpath. You've needlessly created
> a huge classpath for it to search, at least twice the size that
> it needs to be.
> 
> - Paul
> 
> 

Reply via email to