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
