This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.
Summary: | Remove the restriction that a Java package can belong to only one module. | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | platform | Reporter: | _ sandipchitale <sandipchitale> |
Component: | Module System | Assignee: | Jesse Glick <jglick> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | blocker | CC: | edwingo, kitfox |
Priority: | P3 | ||
Version: | 6.x | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
URL: | http://wiki.netbeans.org/StartupCache | ||
Issue Type: | ENHANCEMENT | Exception Reporter: | |
Bug Depends on: | 30971 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
_ sandipchitale
2006-01-18 03:50:44 UTC
A valid RFE in general though your particular use case doesn't make sense as far as I know. jb.jar and jbinfo.jar ought to be loaded in the same module since Introspector prefers to find a BeanInfo in the same class loader (using the thread CCL is less reliable). So you can have both JARs loaded in one lib wrapper. The exposure of jb.jar as a user lib is completely independent of that. Not easily implementable without a partial rewrite of the module system, tracked as issue #30971. Note that there is Introspector.html.setBeanInfoSearchPath http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/beans/Introspector.html#setBeanInfoSearchPath(java.lang.String[]) that can help to workaround this particular issue. The restriction is helpfull to optimize current classloading as we can cache the information which classloader loads resources belonging to some package without significant overhead. If we decide to drop this restriction we need to come with something what will be comparably fast. One idea is 'meta-index' similar to mustang's implementation - each classloader has knolwedge what resources can be loaded with it and can quickly reject reqeusts to load other resource (set of prefixes for JAR entries is created). Yes I realized that the Introspector.setBeanInfoSearchPath() facility will solve that specific problem for us. I suspect we may still have other scenario which requires the original RFE. Will keep you posted. *** Issue 72807 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** Seems to have been fixed, I think in #753dd88065e7. This issue had *1 votes* before move to platform component |