geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r694978 - in /geronimo/server/trunk: assemblies/geronimo-framework/ assemblies/geronimo-jetty6-javaee5/ assemblies/geronimo-jetty6-minimal/ assemblies/geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5/ assemblies/geronimo-tomcat6-minimal/ buildsupport/car-maven-plu...
Date Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:18:48 GMT
Thanks for making these changes David.  I think this mostly addresses my 
concern that plugingroups can be used anywhere plugins are used (it 
certainly helps now that they are all cars :-) ).

So with the subject change ... is it now true what Lin mentioned earlier 
in the "[DISCUSS] plugingroups - another idea" thread:

Lin Sun wrote:
 > For option 1, I guess I don't understand why we need the classLoader
 > attribute.   I think for plugin groups, we should not add the plugin
 > group itself to the classloader, but we should add the dependencies to
 > the classloader.   For instance, if we support Joe's scenario, when a
 > user specifies a plugin group as a dependency in his deployment plan,
 > it would just add the dependencies that the plugin group depends on to
 > the project's classloader.

Will the dependencies of the plugingroup be added to the project's 
classloader?  That would certainly resolve any concerns.

Thanks,
Joe

Mime
View raw message