On the other hand, this definitely argues AGAINST ever shipping "modified"
versions of 3rd-party JAR files. It's far better, IMO, to subclass or contain
the existing class in a new class, and use the new class. There may be
instances where this is impossible, but as a rule, I would GREATLY discourage
modifying existing classes.
Joe
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Dave Wall" <dawall@us.ibm.com>
Reply-To: JAVA400-L@midrange.com
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:06:01 -0600
>
One more consideration for the extensions directory -- it is searched
before the user classpath. It may be best if certain class libraries like
the Toolbox for Java are not in the extensions directory.
Suppose you have a couple of apps that use the Toolbox. One of the apps
puts the Toolbox in the extensions directory. The other grabbed JTOpen,
modified it slightly, then shipped it using the user classpath. The second
app will not get to use its copy of the Toolbox. Since the first app put a
copy in the extensions directory it is used before the jar in the user
classpath. Renaming the second jar won't help. Classes the second app
needs (AS400.class, for example) will be found and used from the jar in the
extensions directory.
I am not saying the extensions directory is bad. It is great for things
like the native JDBC driver where there should be only one copy of the jar
on the system. But, there are a set of functions that should not be in the
extensions directory.
David Wall
AS/400 Toolbox for Java
+---
| This is the JAVA/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to JAVA400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to JAVA400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to JAVA400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: joe@zappie.net
+---
