I don't understand.
What exactly do you mean by "package private access of the members of
such classes" and who does that?
Marina Vatkina wrote:
> There is also this side effect of the V3 impl: as classes in the lib/
> directory are loaded by a separate class loader, and package private
> access of the members of such classes is not possible any more.
>
> Is it expected?
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
>
> Bill Shannon wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>