Re: Ramblings on Build System

From: Lachlan Deck (lachlan.dec..mail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 10 2007 - 16:06:00 EST

  • Next message: Mike Schrag: "Re: ugh .. sorry everyone"

    The only other example I can think of is that of WOApplication's
    lookup of components by their short name via _NSUtilities. Is that
    effected by CP ordering?

    On 11/11/2007, at 4:26 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:

    > AFAIK, frameworks with prototypes must be loaded before frameworks
    > with models that depend on those prototypes ..... but also IIRC,
    > you already handle this in ERXModelGroup eomodel loading.
    >
    > Wonder must be ahead of Apple's frameworks so that the patches/
    > fixed classes form Wonder get opportunity to load.... and it looks
    > like Wonder will always be where up-to-date patches reside before
    > Apple gets around to a bug fix release, so classpath ordering is
    > important here for Eclipse and also for the build.xml task order
    > (localroot before system root stuff in the generated
    > MacOSClassPath.txt.
    >
    > On Nov 10, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
    >
    >>>>
    >>> I understand the problem and the solution, but I think that
    >>> providing
    >>> the ability to order entries on the classpath is a quick hack
    >>> around a
    >>> problem that goes far deeper -- properly solving the problem
    >>> means that
    >>> you need to handle dependencies like OSGi does, or maybe the
    >>> upcoming
    >>> Java module system (although I am not sure how that works in
    >>> detail).
    >> I believe in the grand scheme you are absolutely right ... I think
    >> NSBundle is the source of a lot of confusing problems in WO
    >> because of this. However, I also think that possibly the only
    >> reason the problem of ordering exists is because of Project Wonder
    >> and that it does some dirty things overriding core framework
    >> classes. Does anyone have any other examples of CP ordering being
    >> an issue other than Wonder? I wonder (no pun intended :) ) if we
    >> can address this in an easier way and just define a " load
    >> framework first" option on frameworks. I think the only reason
    >> you need ordering is to make one (or more) frameworks come before
    >> the core. Beyond that, I think it really IS more like an OSGi
    >> bundle that does not overlap.
    >>
    >> ms
    >>
    >

    with regards,

    --
    

    Lachlan Deck



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Nov 10 2007 - 16:07:08 EST