2014-02-18 17:01 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > On 18/02/2014 13:05, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> 2014-02-18 12:09 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > > <snip/> > >>> We can certainly make that easier. Making it non-final, using an >>> over-ridable protected getter(), adding protected getter and setter etc. >>> Does TomEE have a preference? >>> >> >> not really while we can change it, we were used to protected field but >> protected getter would be nice too. > > What do you think of > http://svn.apache.org/r1569398 > > If that is OK, I'll back-port it to 7.0.x with the one change that > j2seClassLoader will be a protected rather than private field in 7.0.x. >
Would be enough, thanks Mark. Just few notes: 1) i think the behavior should be configurable even for tomcat (= use system classloader) 2) in the constructor maybe replace the init by a protected method or a constructor parameter (new constructor WebappClassLoader(parent, j2seClassLoader)?) > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
