Mailing-List: contact dev-help@river.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@river.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1590276 -
 /river/jtsk/skunk/qa_refactor/trunk/build.xml
From: Greg Trasuk <trasukg@stratuscom.com>
In-Reply-To: <1398558513.28107.17.camel@Nokia-N900>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:39:02 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8EB40362-2329-4AC1-8D95-C89295F3D3E7@stratuscom.com>
References: <20140426184621.CF9282388993@eris.apache.org>
 <20140426185451.5931152.45987.16570@stratuscom.com>
 <ED3E1279-C5CC-42F6-9A88-59C5135D12C3@asarian-tech.com>
 <C1461361-75F3-464D-9869-B904D191BB0E@stratuscom.com>
 <1398558513.28107.17.camel@Nokia-N900>
To: dev@river.apache.org,
 Peter <jini@zeus.net.au>


But, so what?  If they=E2=80=99re part of the platform, they=E2=80=99re =
supposed to be there in all Jini clients and services.

Greg.

On Apr 26, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Peter <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:

> Dennis is right, these classes have snuck into jsk-platform.jar, =
they're not in there in Jini2.1
>=20
> Because these classes aren't preferred, they'll be resolved in the =
application loader, simply because they're present, annotated or not.
>=20
> ----- Original message -----
>> Hi Dennis:
>>=20
>> I=E2=80=99m not sure I follow you - why would they not be annotated?=20=

>> jsk-platform goes in the application=E2=80=99s class loader, so =
either it=E2=80=99s
>> annotated with a CodebaseAccessClassLoader or with the =
java.rmi.codebase
>> property.
>>=20
>> Are you sure you=E2=80=99re not thinking of jsk-policy.jar?   That =
normally goes
>> =E2=80=9Cone level above=E2=80=9D the application=E2=80=99s class =
path (since it has to control
>> the security), so wouldn=E2=80=99t get a codebase annotation.   But =
that jar only
>> contains the policy provider.
>>=20
>> Cheers,
>>=20
>> Greg Trasuk
>>=20
>> On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.reedy@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Apr 26, 2014, at 254PM, trasukg@stratuscom.com wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> What is the rationale for inclusion/ exclusion =E2=80=8E?
>>>=20
>>> Classes that are loaded by the system classloader never get =
annotated
>>> with a codebase. These classses were in jsk-platform.jar. The class =
in
>>> question are the net.jini.lookup classes, they are service =
attributes:
>>>=20
>>> net/jini/lookup/entry/Address.class
>>> net/jini/lookup/entry/AddressBean.class
>>> net/jini/lookup/entry/Comment.class
>>> net/jini/lookup/entry/CommentBean.class
>>> net/jini/lookup/entry/EntryBean.class
>>>=20
>>> These need to be in jdk-dl.jar (which they were, but they would =
never
>>> have a codebase since they were loaded by the system classloader).
>>> Peter asked me to help him modularizing qa_refactor, this was
>>> something I spotted.
>>>=20
>>> Dennis
>>=20
>=20