On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Hi! > > Isn't the single EAR classloader the parentClassLoader of the WebApp > ClassLoaders? I do not really undrestand the problem here... Using only 1 > classloader for the whole EAR (including webapps therein) would make the > re-deployment of single webapps impossible. But this is needed as far as I > remember the spec...
Could you quote something? I've never seen any requirements even vaguely resembling this, geronimo has never implemented anything like this, and we've certified a lot of versions. Recently several of us have looked carefully at the ee spec and think that 1 classloader per ear is definitely allowed. thanks david jencks > > So imo this sounds like a no-go > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- On Tue, 12/7/10, David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> From: David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com> >> Subject: Classloaders and component boundaries >> To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org> >> Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 12:44 AM >> In geronimo we've been studying the >> ee platform spec section 8.3 and think that it's allowable >> to have a single classloader per ear, and we're currently >> implementing this (in geronimo 3). However the jsf >> spec requires that different web apps in an ear be >> distinguishable in the javax.faces.FactoryFinder. >> Currently myfaces' FactoryFinder distinguishes web apps by >> context classloader. >> >> While there might be other possible solutions, I'd like to >> make the way FactoryFinder figures out what context it's in >> pluggable. The default implementation would continue >> to use the TCCL, and geronimo can install a system that >> relies on explicit notification from the container when >> component boundaries are crossed. >> >> I've refactored the myfaces bit of this and it seems to >> work fine, but I'm still working on the geronimo part. >> However since a myfaces release seems imminent I'd like >> to get this proposal out for consideration and review >> ASAP. I've opened MYFACES-2995 and am attaching an >> initial patch for consideration. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> > > >
