On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 3:33 PM, "Andreas Rückert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4 is ok, unless someone (maybe a company, or so) want's to provide a module, > we are not even aware of. If all the modules (with libs) would require a > modified > manifest, it'll be very complex to create a complete manifest. > > BTW: the above statement is just for the design fetishists on the dev list, > since I don't believe, that such a module exists... :-) Well, if that's the "solution" we adopt, we'll certainly guarantee that no such module will ever exist (unless, of course, they pull apart all the dependent JARs and repackage them in their own JAR). I was actually suggesting the module bundle any required JARs in the module JAR, but it sounds like that doesn't work without some classloader modifications. http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/deployment/jar/downman.html On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Linus Tolke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think that having jars in separate directories will prevent them > from being confused since they, with the current solution, will have to be > on the global class path anyway. It is better then to see the conflicts > already in the jar names. I think the solution to that is to not use a "global" classpath, but instead give each module it's own delegating classloader that delegates back to the main ArgoUML classloader, but doesn't affect other modules. Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
