Mike Keith wrote:
> Hi Sahoo,
>
> Agreed. We will loosen the language in the javadoc to include at least those
> two types, and I think in the end we should not even be that restrictive.
> After this draft we will look at loosening the language and perhaps even
> adjusting the API if necessary.
Mike, as we've been discussing in our separate thread, the key is
providing enough information in the spec that you can write a portable
provider. Knowing that it can be any kind of URL at all isn't enough
given what the provider has to be able to do. Requiring it to be either
a file: URL or another URL from which you can get an InputStream that
contains a jar file is sufficient, but let's just say it's not very
object oriented. :-) Returning a new kind of object that abstracts
the required operations, as Sahoo suggested, would be better, but I
realize it's too late to fix that in this release.