On May 26, 2009, at 2:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On May 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On May 22, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Jacek Laskowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
One (small) step at a time? :) I'll give it a shot ->
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XBEAN-129
Done. It turned out very easy. Thanks for encouragement :)
I'm not very happy with the current way this is implemented. I
guess my fundamental point of view is that shading is only needed
when you don't have good classloaders such as osgi or (some version
of) the geronimo ones. I don't think the core xbean libraries
should make such assumptions about classloaders but should assume
good classloading.
So I'd prefer that the core xbean libraries use plan asm and that
we provide shaded xbean libraries that use the shaded asm jar. If
no one objects I'm happy to set this up.
Ok, the end result will be the same for any G assemblies that pull
in OpenEJB. I.e. OpenEJB needs to satisfy the embedded scenario
where there are just plain classloaders, so the end result is that
xbean-finder + xbean-reflect + xbean-asm-shaded are still going to
be required as they are now (or some equivalent form of them).
I posted a patch to XBEAN-128 showing what I have in mind.
- xbean-reflect and xbean-finder use unshaded asm (dependencies should
be provided like they used to be, I guess)
- 2 new modules xbean-finder-shaded and xbean-reflect shaded that are
shaded to use the xbean-asm-shaded jar instead of plain asm jars
So if we go with something like this patch openejb would depend on the
xbean-finder-shaded and xbean-reflect-shaded jars and geronimo might
use the plain ones instead.
One difference between the proposed xbean-finder-shaded and current
trunk xbean-finder is that the proposed -shaded jars don't have a
dependency on xbean-asm-shaded whereas the trunk jars do. However
this was something of a change as previously xbean-finder listed the
asm jars as scope provided.
thanks
david jencks
-David
