> What a curious little problem! I suppose it makes some kind of sense
> that extensions placed in jre/lib/ext/ should be self
> contained. That's
> probably the intention.
JNDI for example is loaded by the bootstrap class loader for JDK 1.3 and it
has to load application classes. That is why it is using the 3-arg version
of Class.forName(). So *this* is the way it is intended to be.
> There is an issue with the solution you propose, anyway, which is that
> the 3-arg version of Class.forName() was introduced in JDK
> 1.2 and log4j
> is JDK 1.1.x compatible.
JDK 1.1.x ! Uh, oh, Im using just JDK 1.3 (and above ;-).
This is the problem. Extensions placed in jre/lib/ext should be JDK 1.2
compatible and should support the usage of different class loaders.
> Presumably at some point we'll decide to sacrifice JDK 1.1 so your
> proposal may still come in handy, only maybe not any time soon.
JDK 1.1 is out of date for quite some time. But as long as the HTML browsers
support only JDK 1.1 many people will still (have to) use JDK 1.1.
All not really nice but I understand the situation.
Regards,
Ole
--
Ole Bulbuk Fon://+49/30/6576/3724
Kelman GmbH Fax://+49/30/6576/3601
Haus 40 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Koepenicker Str. 325 http://www.Kelman.de
12555 Berlin, Germany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
