Nor do I disagree... I /love/ modularity too. RB
"Qui ne dit mot consent" (who tells nothing agrees) -----Original Message----- From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 7:13 AM To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [arch] VM/Classlibrary interface Heh. I agree. I just was too busy in the VM/class library fire- fight :) So, given that my foray into architecture discussion was such a stunning success, would you like to start the discussion of such a thing might be approached? (Please change the subject, of course...) geir On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: > Apparently, only you and I agree. ;-) > > Dalibor Topic wrote: > > >> Richard S. Hall wrote: >> >> >>> To me, this is the point. I would like to see all of the >>> libraries built on to of the JVM to be packaged in a more module- >>> like fashion, so that their exports and imports are explicit. >>> There would be many benefits if this were done, rather than >>> relying on the current approach of assuming that everything is >>> accessible. >>> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >>> So, from my point of view, it is definitely going in the right >>> direction to make libraries understand which class loader they >>> should use to get to their own "module's" classes, as opposed to >>> just assuming they can get them from any application class loader. >>> >> >> >> +1 to that, too. >> >> cheers, >> dalibor topic >> >> >> > > -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
