Craig,
We can make it work easily. We are able to verify by class name the interfaces
implemented, but I wonder if there is some security restriction on that.
Regards,
Erik Bengtson
Quoting Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Erik,
>
> No, this is not ok.
>
> The problem is for example when the application calls
> pm.makePersistent(employee). If the jdoimpl does a check (if (! o
> instanceof PersistenceCapable) throw JDOUserException("Object was not
> enhanced");) then the different classes will be an issue. The
> PersistenceCapable in the 2nd jar is not the same class as in the 1st
> jar even though they have the same name.
>
> Have you tried it?
>
> Craig
>
> On Jan 10, 2006, at 4:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > An app has two classloaders, the 1st with jdoimpl.jar+jdo2.jar and
> > the 2nd with
> > persistent classes +jdo2.jar.
> >
> > The PCclass links to jdo2.jar(2) and the jdoImpl links to jdo2.jar
> > (1). I guess
> > that's ok, right? In any case, it may worth mentioning that in the
> > spec.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik Bengtson
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
