There is a related known issue... http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4863391.html
And I've just submitted a new bug report detailing our case, as I suspect it isn't quite the same (we don't use "localhost" in the URL) d. > -----Original Message----- > From: Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 04 August 2003 08:39 > To: James Developers List > Subject: RE: JDK 1.4.2 and class loading > > > Noel and Lindsay, > > I made some further testing and I can confirm that using the > explicit jar protocol url solves the problem for jdk 1.4.2. As > I'm no longer able to test with previous releases, it would be > very useful if Lindsay could do a backward testing. > > The javadoc in > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/net/JarURLConnection. > html seem to suggest, but not mandate ("Jar URLs should be used > to refer to a JAR file or entries in a JAR file.") such urls. > From what we have experimented they seem instead to have become > mandatory in jdk 1.4.2, although this fact is not mentioned in > the appropriate place: > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/compatibility.html. Then IMO we > should be OK to update the CVS (and test backwards), and notify > Sun about this undocumented incompatibility introduced in 1.4.2 > that could create problems to many java users. > > Vincenzo > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: luned� 4 agosto 2003 3.52 > > To: James Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: JDK 1.4.2 and class loading > > > > > > Lindsay, > > > > Since you are in a position to reproduce the problem readily, > if I update > > the CVS and post a test build, will be you able to do some > testing and let > > us know if all is copasetic? > > > > --- Noel > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lindsay Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 3:51 > > To: James Developers List > > Subject: RE: JDK 1.4.2 and class loading > > > > > > I must of missed Vincenzo's post. I hadn't figured out why I had > > different > > behaviours on machines till I read your post and now you've > explained it. > > Regarding deploying mailets, on some machines (1.4.2) only SAR style > > deployment worked for me while on others (< 1.4.2) jars loose in the lib > > directly worked. > > > > This is a big "gotcha" for users. > > > > Lindsay > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 02 August 2003 21:57 > > To: James Developers List > > Subject: RE: JDK 1.4.2 and class loading > > > > > > Danny, > > > > > > jar:file:path/jarfile.jar!/ > > > > > That has always been the style of URL for jars as used to > find files in > > > jars, but I'm surprised to see that jars now have to be specified this > > way. > > > > Same here. The javadocs haven't changed, and still say that > "Any URL that > > ends with a '/' is assumed to refer to a directory. Otherwise, > the URL is > > assumed to refer to a JAR file which will be opened as needed." > > > > Vincenzo upgraded to JDK 1.4.2, and found the file: protocol to > > no longer be > > working for JAR files. I did some quick searching on the web, > and posted > > the results. The only way to get it working in JDK 1.4.2 was to > > provide an > > explicit jar protocol URL. As I said, I don't know if this is an > > intentional change in behavior, or a bug. > > > > --- Noel > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
