geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Warner" <jaw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r713680 - in /geronimo/server/trunk/framework/modules: geronimo-service-builder/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/deployment/service/ geronimo-service-builder/src/main/xsd/ geronimo-service-builder/src/test/java/org/apache/geronimo/de
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:40:23 GMT
Gianny,

I think you are correct.  The most recent snapshot of OpenEJB still exhibits
the same errors that were mentioned previously.

Thanks,

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Gianny Damour <
gianny.damour@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The feature is still available. However we do not provide a XML
> configuration style for it. We only provide a script configuration style.
> For instance, by dropping a file named:
>
> DependenciesPrivateClass.groovy
>
> in the folder of the plugin to update and with a content looking like
>
> Set privateClasses = ['hide.this', 'hide.that']
>
> configurationData.environment.classLoadingRules.privateRule.addClassPrefixes(privateClasses)
>
> You can achieve the same effect.
>
> Let me know if you think that we should also provide a XML configuration
> style.
>
> Regarding the TCK problem, I do not think that this change is related. I
> believe that the TCK problem is due to the new OpenEJB snapshot. Jason,
> could you please confirm?
>
> Thanks,
> Gianny
>
>
> On 14/11/2008, at 5:19 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>  I think I was one of the people asking for this to be reverted.
>>
>> Just to clarify my position:  I'm very much in favor of keeping the
>> functionality.  I think it will help with some of the more obscure
>> classloader issues we've been hitting.
>>
>> My suggestion to revert the change was more pragmatic to resolve two
>> issues:
>> 1) new TCK failures reported by Jason
>> 2) The implicit dependency on a new OpenEJB 3.1.x release
>>
>> If we can resolve these 2 issues without reverting the change (or for #2
>> if it seems we need a new OpenEJB 3.1.x release for other reasons ... like
>> other TCK failures) then I'm very much in favor of keeping this change.
>>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> Um, -1.  I thought this was a great idea for 2.2.  What's the problem
>>> that leads you to revert it?
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> On Nov 13, 2008, at 12:35 AM, gdamour@apache.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Author: gdamour
>>>> Date: Thu Nov 13 00:35:05 2008
>>>> New Revision: 713680
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=713680&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> Revert addition of private-classes element. Private classes can be
>>>> configured via scripts.
>>>>
>>>> (GERONIMO-4403) Provide a mechanism to hide specific classes  of a
>>>> configuration to all its children
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
~Jason Warner

Mime
View raw message