Blah...
marc fleury wrote:
> nah nah nah... let him come and explain why the externalizable metadata as a
> tree representation of XML should deal with CL, frankly he is coming out of
> left field with this...
>
> if it is inVM it is useless and it is extraVM it is broken :)
The metadata object is inVM. It is not extraVM (you never pass it
around).
> |So we would have a generic deployer package containing:
> |
> |* an abstract MetaData class with a basic implementation of parentship and
> |classloader association
>
> relax Dr Jung, you were closer to a solution 2 days ago (imho) specify the
> dependency of classes *somehow* in the XML.
Oh, you mean, like I described. Yes? Thank you then.
> Certainly a "System" tag isn't
> in our scope. I think he is thinking CL at runtime and at runtime YES, the
> System CL is the grand Daddy of all CLs but not on XML !!!!
As before, there is no System CL (or Application Manager CL if you want
to use that terminology).
> Yes at this point, we are all waxing poetic with "transitive closure of
> system metadata" (including me) however we don't know what we are talking
> about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about.
> and no rickard don't go in it and name it "SystemMetaData" and say "see
> guys? there it is" cause I will come spank you.
I will do it. By Jove, I will do it. :-)
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
