Catching up on some old mail...
Where did this end up? Are we now compatible by default? Did we add a
deployment option to enable the old behavior?
Jerome Dochez wrote:
> ok I see.
>
> My take is that by default we should be spec compliant. I am fine having
> a flag for backward compatibility, seems useful to me.
>
> jerome
>
> On Apr 1, 2009, at 3:06 AM, Kenneth Saks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 31, 2009, at 11:20 PM, Jerome Dochez wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just learned that a conscious decision was made that the
>>>> server-side would not conform to this provision of the spec but
>>>> would let modules see top-level JARs as in the past.
>>> I am not aware of that decision, did I make it ? (I have been known
>>> to not remember past mistakes)
>>
>> Yes, we discussed it with Hong about a month ago. The decision was to
>> preserve the V2 behavior of making any .jars at the .ear level visible
>> as library .jars. We only talked about the server-side case though,
>> not app clients.
>>
>>
>