Re: Java libraries and proposal.
- To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm@one-point.com>
- Cc: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>, james@netcsi.com, debian-java@lists.debian.org, java@gcc.gnu.org
- Subject: Re: Java libraries and proposal.
- From: Cedric Berger <cedric@wireless-networks.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:11:34 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] 3AD63625.FEFD6844@wireless-networks.com>
- References: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.10.10104112115240.6823-100000@mars.deadcafe.org>
Jeff Sturm wrote: > On 11 Apr 2001, Per Bothner wrote: > > > The 'add everything' approach only invites DLL hell. > > > > Well, first this is what Sun does, at least to some extent, with the > > "extensions" mechanism. > > If I understand this extension mechanism correctly, the class loader can > potentially search the entire extensions directory at runtime. That seems > horribly inefficient if that directory can grow to dozens or hundreds of > .jar's. Isn't that an implementation issue? What I mean is that " if that directory can grow to dozens or hundreds of .jar's", nothing would prevent gcj from, for example, keeping a directory of the content of the jar files in some kind of private database for faster startup. Cedric
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Java libraries and proposal.
- From: Jeff Sturm <jsturm@one-point.com>
- Re: Java libraries and proposal.
- References:
- Re: Java libraries and proposal.
- From: Jeff Sturm <jsturm@one-point.com>
- Re: Java libraries and proposal.
- Prev by Date: Re: Java libraries and proposal.
- Next by Date: Re: Java libraries and proposal.
- Previous by thread: Re: Java libraries and proposal.
- Next by thread: Re: Java libraries and proposal.
- Index(es):