On Mer 9 mars 2005 12:39, Gary Benson a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> The symlinks are actually just a security (yes the jvm includes
> stuff we need). You can probably point them to any jar you like - if
> the stuff in internal to the jvm it'll be added to the classpath
> anyway.
>
> It's nicer to point them to the real implementation though, if only
> to document the jvm internal layout.
Would it be better perhaps to replace the symlinks with empty jar
files? Or maybe jarfiles containing only a README to indicate that
the classes that would be in there are now in the core classpath?
Both would work - the classpath builder only cares about finding a file
with the right name in the right place, and jvms only require real jar
files (they don't handle well files with .jar extensions that are not a
jar archive).
I like symlinking the bits which provide the extension better (sometimes
when you need to debug a crash it's convenient to have a symlink that
shows you for example that the xml parser inside IBM jvms is just some
xerces version), but that might only be pedantic me.
I must say that if the problem is no one knows where the gcj bits that do
jndi are it's a bit worrying in itself ;)
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot