>> >> So that brings me to question like if it is safe to mix python >> packages that contain the same java classes? Or not recommended at >> all? > > Hmm, not sure. I've never tried that. It seems a little unsane to me. > Where this may cause trouble is with the different sets of wrappers jcc has > generated for the same classes. I don't expect them to be usable
So I think I should include two jars in my pyjama package, one with my own lucene classes, the other one with lucene.jar -- and the lucene.jar put into classpath only if pylucene is not available on the system > interchangeably since which methods get wrapped depends on the transitive > closure of dependencies that was computed during generation. > > That being said, I don't see why the classes would not be found in the first > place. > > What are the _exact_ jcc invocations you used to build both extensions ? python -m jcc --shared --package java.util java.util.ArrayList newseman.gate.PythonicAnnie newseman.lucene.whisperer.LuceneWhisperer newseman.lucene.whisperer.IndexDictionary --python pyjama --build --classpath ../build/jar/lucene-standalone-pyjama-0.1.jar;../build/jar/gate-standalone-pyjama-0.1.jar --include ../build/jar/lucene-standalone-pyjama-0.1.jar --include ../build/jar/gate-standalone-pyjama-0.1.jar --bdist --version 0.1 pylucene is 2.9.1 and I didn't change anything besided the windows section: PREFIX_PYTHON=/cygdrive/c/dev/Python251/ ANT=/cygdrive/c/dev/apache-ant-1.7.1/bin/ant JAVA_HOME=/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Java/jdk1.6.0_12 PYTHON=$(PREFIX_PYTHON)/python.exe JCC=$(PYTHON) -m jcc --shared NUM_FILES=3 I have updated JDK in the meantime (am using jcc built on 1.6.0_12, now JDK1.6.0_18) - I can try to recompile JCC and both extensions with new JDK - if it makes any sense (?) roman > > Andi.. >
