Daniel Kulp wrote:

> > I am sort of hoping someone can prove me wrong here? :) Also I am
> wondering
> > what proper alternatives would be. Java 6 compiler support maybe but I
> > still like java 5 :) At least making the compiler strategy pluggable
> would
> > be good (JCI?)!
> 
> I'm not sure either.   I suppose one option would be allow use of the
> eclipse
> compiler.   That's probably an OSGi bundle already.   I've never looked
> into
> it though.

I know it works cause we used it in one of our products to have just that
untill we removed the need for compiling on the fly altogether :)

> A patch to make things more pluggable would be more than welcome.  :-)

*arf* me and my big mouth... Just had my first look at the CXF codebase 
so I don't know what I can come up with on short notice but I'll have a 
look ;)


Regards,
Bram


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:13 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Bram de Kruijff
> Subject: Re: Using DynamicClientFactory in OSGi context
> 
> On Thu July 23 2009 9:42:47 am Bram de Kruijff wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The question popped up in at the end of on earlier reply but somehow
> it
> > stuck. Looking at the DynamicClientFactory.setupClasspath(...)
> > implementation that constructs the cp to pass to javac, I'd say this
> can
> > never be used in and OSGi context where packages are provided through
> OSGi
> > ContentClassLoaders. I only found this related issue which seems to
> have
> > resolved itself without actually changing anything
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1798.
> >
> > I am sort of hoping someone can prove me wrong here? :) Also I am
> wondering
> > what proper alternatives would be. Java 6 compiler support maybe but I
> > still like java 5 :) At least making the compiler strategy pluggable
> would
> > be good (JCI?)!
> 
> I'm not sure either.   I suppose one option would be allow use of the
> eclipse
> compiler.   That's probably an OSGi bundle already.   I've never looked
> into
> it though.
> 
> A patch to make things more pluggable would be more than welcome.  :-)
> 
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [email protected]
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog

Reply via email to