On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Rob Heittman <rob.heitt...@solertium.com> wrote: > Well, now that you laid it out much more clearly than I managed ... how about: > > - context > container.setClassLoader(Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader()); > > - container > container.setClassLoader(container.getClass().getClassLoader()); > > - none > // won't set any classloader > > ... since what we're actually specifying is the container class's > classloader, I think "container" might be more descriptive than either > "current" or "jruby"
Oh, "container." That makes sense to me. I'm going to work on this. Hopefully, this will be in RC2. -Yoko > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Yoko Harada <yoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think the change is good and doesn't harm anything. This option is quite >> new. >> >> However, the name "jruby" is confusing to me because we have >> "JRubyClassloader." Don't you have good idea for the second option >> above? >> >> -Yoko > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
