Craig,We can make it work easily. We are able to verify by class name the interfacesimplemented, but I wonder if there is some security restriction on that.Regards,Erik BengtsonQuoting Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM>:Hi Erik,No, this is not ok.The problem is for example when the application callspm.makePersistent(employee). If the jdoimpl does a check (if (! oinstanceof PersistenceCapable) throw JDOUserException("Object was notenhanced");) then the different classes will be an issue. ThePersistenceCapable in the 2nd jar is not the same class as in the 1stjar even though they have the same name.Have you tried it?CraigOn Jan 10, 2006, at 4:09 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:Hi,An app has two classloaders, the 1st with jdoimpl.jar+jdo2.jar andthe 2nd withpersistent classes +jdo2.jar.The PCclass links to jdo2.jar(2) and the jdoImpl links to jdo2.jar(1). I guessthat's ok, right? In any case, it may worth mentioning that in thespec.Regards,Erik BengtsonCraig RussellArchitect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.comP.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!