felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sahoo <Sa...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Bootdelegation syntax and semantic
Date Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:21:06 GMT

The earlier behavior was incorrect and it was fixed as:


You guessed it right, a portable way to achieve bootdelegation for 
com.sun.corba and its subpackages is to specify like this:

com.sun.corba, com.sun.corba.*

I think com.sun.corba* is a bug and you should file a bug.


Guillaume Sauthier wrote:
> Hi all
> I have some questions about bootdelegation and dynamic import package 
> syntax and semantic.
> I did not find the spec very clear about the expected behavior of a 
> package pattern description ( 'com.sun.corba.*' for example).
> In previous versions of Felix (1.4.x at least), the package itself 
> ('com.sun.corba') was included "in the pattern", meaning that if a 
> bundle want to load 'com.sun.corba.Anything', it will be delegated to 
> the boot classloader. All subpackages matching the pattern will also 
> be delegated to the boot loader ('com.sun.corba.orb.Other').
> In current Felix (1.8.x), the package itself is no more delegated.
> This behavior has been observed for both bootdelegation and dynamic 
> import package.
> I was wondering what was the reason behind this change ?
> In my use case, I want to delegate the package itself AND the 
> subpackages. In previous versions of Felix I was describing this using 
> this pattern:
> 'com.sun.corba.*'
> Now, I have to describe my pattern in the following way:
> 'com.sun.corba*' Notice that I removed the '.' before the '*'
> I could also achieve the same result with this other description:
> 'com.sun.corba,com.sun.corba.*' but it seems odd (for me) to write my 
> package name twice ...
> Regarding the spec, the description format of a package/pattern should 
> be the following:
> package-name | package-name '.*' |  '*'
> So it seems that describing a package like 'com.sun.corba*' is wrong.
> But it works with Felix.
> Must I fill a bug ?
> What is the best interoperable way to describe bootdelegation ?
> What should I write ?
> Does someone know what works with Equinox ?
> Thanks
> --Guillaume

View raw message