Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 03.01.2008, 10:27 +0100 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler: > Felix Meschberger wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 02.01.2008, 12:00 +0200 schrieb Jukka Zitting: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Jan 2, 2008 10:18 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> My changes to the code use (some ugly) method reflection instead of > >>> relying on a specific interface. We could either go this way (in addition > >>> we could also check if the repository in question implements the > >>> interface by checking for the interface *name*) or we could require > >>> that the jackrabbit api is put into a shared class loader. For ease > >>> of use I would go the first way. > >> The "correct" solution would IMHO be to have the Jackrabbit API in a > >> shared class loader, just like the JCR API. > > > > I completely agree. > > > > And no, there is no third solution, because the second is the right > > one :-) > > > Oh :( > > Ok, if the second solution is the right one this means that in this case > more or less the whole jcr api bundle should not be used but these > classes should be loaded via the root class loader, right?
Not quite: The launcher should be configured such that the Jackrabbit API classes are added to the bootclass path just like the JCR API classes. You still need the jcr/api bundle because it also has the session pooling. Thanks you OSGi package resolution, the JCR API and Jackrabbit API classes will be used from the system bundle and not from the jcr/api bundle - this is why bundles exporting packages must also import these packages. Regards Felix
