On Friday, November 18, 2011 4:39:57 PM Guillaume Nodet wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 16:25, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 16:19, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Can I have more details on that last point? Keep in mind, the class > >> names > >> for the defaults are very different depending on the JDK in use. > >> Thus, > >> you > >> cannot just change the default classname in spec jar as that may not > >> work on > >> the JDK. You may need to find a way to actually get it to dig into > >> the Provider factory thing in the JDK to get the right class name. > > > > Yes, that's really one point I still have to investigate as I'd like to > > be able to use the JRE provided implementations when possible. > > I don't really see any other solution than to hardcode the names as the > > implementation class names aren't available easily (I really don't want > > to start hacking into byte code to find the value of parameter calls). > > I suppose that would mean supporting a limited set of JDK that we would > > have tested our default values with.
Is there a way to get the bytecode for the original FactoryFinder out of the rt.jar (or wherever on Mac), create class out of it and just call it? Guess that still involves a little bytecode manipulation. :-( -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
