Hi,

I have seen this "current approach which just tries to fix the new urls if
they wouldn't work". Therefore I proposed to move completely to VFS which
is an abstraction for all URLs and should cover all cases, at least
theoretically. I the theory, if we have an url, we need to call

VirtualFile fileOrDir = VFS.getRoot(url);

and work with virtual files only. VFS can be also extended for new
protocols. So, if you have URL(newprotocol://xyz), you can write an
extension hook for "newprotocol" as mentioned here
http://java.dzone.com/news/jboss-virtual-file-system

For now a fix in the existing infrastructure (AnnotationDB or whatever)
would be enough perfectly.

Best regards and good luck.

Oleg.

2012/1/18 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>

> hi,
>
> maybe this case, but not all cases. esp. not with our current approach
> which just tries to fix the new urls if they wouldn't work.
> (we discussed it already...)
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
>
> 2012/1/18 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Nope, should be possible without.
>>
>> We also came across a few issues within the AnnotatedType in the CDI
>> spec. The effect is that we cannot completely replica our internal bean
>> definition with the THIRDPARTY ones (which use the AnnotatedType), because
>> the AnnotatedType e.g. doesn't know anything about it's supertypes, etc.
>> This at least destroys our original plan to move our functionality
>> completely over to AnnotatedType creation and modification.
>>
>> The AnnotationDB itself is already forked, bug fixed and now a part of
>> OWB itself. Thus we should also be able to add the VFS stuff.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>
>> >To: [email protected]
>> >Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:15 AM
>> >Subject: Re: Yan: Yan: Help! OWB on JBoss 5.x not running
>> >
>> >
>> >@mark:
>> >we should really think about finishing the new classpath scanner.
>> >(we can't fix all constellations without it.)
>> >
>> >
>> >regards,
>> >gerhard
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Reply via email to