Multi or single remote VM [wasRE: [ve-dev] Re: Future of VE]

["Philippe Ombredanne" <pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rich Kulp wrote:
>>> RLK >>> I think a better approach would be to take an "opensource" 
>copy of just the java.beans.Introspector and rename it to something
unique, 
>keeping the appropriate copyrights. [.....]
>This all depends of course on the License of the chosen opensource copy
that 
>you choose. Might need a lawyer first before you just copy and modify
some 
>opensource vm and then reship in Eclipse. Maybe Eclipse 
>foundation can help there.

There are several candidates there with Classpath, Sun openjdk but
Harmony has probably the best chances license wise to be acceptable by
Eclipse.
The interesting thing there is that the beans package is itselft an OSGI
module like all Harmany components :-) and is developed with Eclipse and
is Eclipse friendly:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/bea
ns/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF?view=markup

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/bea
ns/src/main/java/java/beans/Introspector.java?revision=558953&view=marku
p


>>These are things that need to be thought  about. Though the idea of
>>separate classloaders is a good one. 
>>JEM would need to be modified such that it understands classloaders. 
>>Right now it only loads classes from the application class loader. 
>>So the "class factories" would need to become "class loader" proxies
>>instead. kk. 
>Where would that be in JEM? 

>>> RLK >>> I think these are implementation of IBeanClassFactory or
something like that.


Thanks, 
Philippe