felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: URL Handlers Service
Date Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:14:08 GMT
Upayavira wrote:

> I don't know if this is a completely stupid idea, but...
>
> If we've got our own classloader, then requests for classes will be 
> passed to that for resolution. Hence, if a request for java.net.URL is 
> made, such that the URL.setURLStreamHandlerFactory() method can be 
> called, could we not, instead of returning a java.net.URL class, 
> return a proxy class that has an alternative implementation of 
> setURLStreamHandlerFactory()? That way we just route around the JVM 
> problem within our own classloader.
>
> Reasonable? Stupid?


Well, I have certainly had worse ideas, but I am not sure if we should 
us this approach. And ultimately, I don't think it solves the issue. We 
are in a situation where we have a single stream of requests for 
protocol handlers that must be multiplexed out to the appropriated 
framework instance to be serviced. The above approach doesn't really 
help with the multiplexing aspect.

-> richard


Mime
View raw message