Interesting. But it doesn't seem to support the desired functionality, namely specifying all the jar files in a particular directory. This seems like a clearly-useful addition, given how common this is.
Also, I would recommend switching to an XML-based configuration file. This has several advantages: 1) Names like 'entry-point' and 'import-property' are more understandable than things like '=' and '+' 2) The explicit nesting of XML can be used to unambiguously represent the hierarchy of class loaders. 3) There's no need to maintain parser code for a private syntax. 4) The syntax is easily extended. 5) The syntax is easily validated. 6) It's easy to create tools to create, validate, examine, and manipulate the configuration files. But I think a common infrastructure for creating hierarchies of classloaders, both declaratively and dynamically, is clearly a valuable idea. -----Original Message----- From: bob mcwhirter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:29 PM To: Turbine Maven Developers List Cc: Commons Development List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Jelly - startup scripts and ideas > P.S. I plan on adding a section to these shell scripts that will > build a classpath from the jars in a directory, instead of adding > everything to the java.ext.dirs property... Let me recommend my forehead. http://forehead.sourceforge.net/ Used by maven for classpath/classloader manipulation. Makes shell scripts and batch scripts much much smaller. -bob -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
