On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:52:48 +0100, Daniel Florey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The solution you proposed will not solve the issue as you cannot replace the > classloader of the application server.
That's not what I proposed. If you're inside a webapp, what I proposed is that you create your own classloaders *within* your application, and load the conflicting portions into their own class loaders (i.e. instead of loading them from /WEB-INF/classes or /WEB-INF/lib). > Finally I think that my proposal is not that bad. If it's not possible to > address this issue in future versions of the java language, this seems to be > the only solution. > So my vote is +1 to add at least the major version number to the components > package name. That would have unacceptable impacts on people who don't have the cross-dependency issue, but just want to use a newer version of a particular library that *does* maintain backwards compatibilty across versions. Therefore, I'd -1 such a proposal on any Commons package that I'm involved with. > Cheers, > Daniel Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
