https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56530
--- Comment #23 from Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> --- (In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #20) > (In reply to Konstantin Kolinko from comment #19) > > This needs > > 1. Refactoring, involving extraction of common parent class. > > > > 2. Implementation of alternative class loader class that is > > parallel-capable. > > > > The default implementation (WebappClassLoader) must stay with being non > > parallel capable. The common parent class must be registered as > > parallel-capable. > > > > If ClassLoader.registerAsParallelCapable() is called via reflection, I > > wonder whether the registerAsParallelCapable() method can correctly > > determine the calling class. We are not calling the method directly, but via > > reflection APIs. It needs a proof of concept. > > If registerAsParallelCapable can't be called via reflection, then it means > that both Java 6 and Java 7 are required to build Tomcat 7. If we are going to have to play reflection tricks then we might was well go all the way, change the access permissions and call ParallelLoaders.register() directly. > We already require Java 7 for building the (optional) WebSocket components. > Could this simply be added to that list? I'd really rather not. WebSocket is optional. The web application class loader is a little more fundamental. > > 3. Testing, testing, testing... > > Since the "regular" WebappClassLoader is still available (and the default > CL), I think it's okay to mark it as an experimental feature and allow users > to try it out. No objections to that. With the usual caveats about minimal impact on the existing implementation of course. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
