Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 08:03 +0200, Jeroen Frijters wrote: > > I'd really like to see the removal of the META-INF/services/*xml* go > in. > > Yes, that seems like a good idea. libgcj also did I believe that and > the fallbacks are in place. Besides the four service files you mention > they also remove the following 2 though: > > META-INF/services/org.relaxng.datatype.DatatypeLibraryFactory > META-INF/services/org.w3c.dom.DOMImplementationSourceList > > The first has always (more than a year been there when Chris added > relaxng support, second was added a few weeks ago by Gary. Yeah, I wasn't sure about these two (I don't know very much about all the xml apis, so I was being conservative and requesting to at least remove the ones that I have personally seen cause problems), but if libgcj removed them we probably should too. > Should these also not be there? The rule being if it is a service in > the core classes we default to in in code not through service files? Unfortunately it's not that simple. For example, the sound ones *are* in the JDK (at least the "javax.sound.midi.spi.MidiDeviceProvider" one I tried). I don't know if that means they are required to be there, but I assume it makes the code easier because I also assume that the service api support reading multiple services files. It's just that this method isn't always applicable (like with the xml stuff), because there isn't always a way to determine which implementation is "best" or to merge them. Regards, Jeroen
