incubator-river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Hobbs <tvho...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: river.jar
Date Sun, 02 Jan 2011 16:15:34 GMT
Am I right in thinking/remembering that, with the exception of the
*-dl.jar files, the only others that are needed are the jsk-*.jar
ones.

I'm pretty sure that many of the JARs contain the same class files, I
think that there's definitely scope to reduce the number JAR files
that the build creates.

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:
> I agree that dynamic proxy classes should remain dynamic downloads, however
> much of net.jini.* isn't in the jsk-platform.jar
>
> Should we expand the platform to contain all net.jini.*?
>
> Except for providers? (com.sun.jini.resource.Service, similar to Java's
> sun.misc.Service and java.util.ServiceLoader)
>
> Perhaps we can include more in the platform and reduce the number of jar
> archives we've got?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter.
>
> trasukg@trasuk.com wrote:
>>
>> Isn't that already jsk-platform.jar?  I would object to anything that
>> subverts the dynamic proxy loading concept that is central to Jini.
>> It is imperative that people don't, for instance, get the
>> service-registrar proxy impls in their local class path.  That would break
>> compatibility with future or alternate impls.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Greg
>> ------Original Message------
>> From: Sim IJskes - QCG
>> To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> ReplyTo: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: river.jar
>> Sent: Dec 31, 2010 10:07 AM
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> anybody have an objection against a river.jar in the build that contains
>> all river runtime classes?
>>
>> Gr. Sim
>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message