Forum: JRuby JRUBY-3623

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Robert B. (Guest)
on 2009-05-11 12:09
(Received via mailing list)
Writing about http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-3623 here as I
cannot add
more comments in jira....

I dont want to harp on about this one too much, but...

> a jar file is defined by having additional metadata inside it

as do my zip files, in this case.

My thinking is that both jar and zip files could equally be well
structured
or corrupted or invalid.  JRuby needs to contend with good and bad jar
files
- why not zips also?

> A better workaround for you may be to simply unpack the zip and make a new
> jar yourself.

Unfortunately not possible with the licensing agreement I'm working
under.

Anyway, of course it's jruby dev's call.  Just putting my case
forward....


Rob



--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JRUBY-3623-tp23478800p23478800.html
Sent from the JRuby - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Adam S. (Guest)
on 2009-05-11 12:14
(Received via mailing list)
Why not just rename the file to end in .jar?

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:07 AM, rob08 <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
> My thinking is that both jar and zip files could equally be well structured
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
>    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Charles Oliver N. (Guest)
on 2009-05-11 21:03
(Received via mailing list)
Yep, that's another option. It's really very odd to find an application
that has jar files contents in a .zip file...I can't say I have seen
that except in a few really old applications. Adding support for
requiring in a zip file seems like a very peculiar thing to do...and
then where do we draw the line?

Adding .zip would also mean that require needs to search yet another
suffix when none is specified, since it currently will look for .jar on
its own. That would add more overhead to require searching.

The only thing I might see value in would be allowing any zip-compressed
archive to be on the load path, but that's not the same as requiring.
That would open the door to general-purpose "ruby archives" which would
be useful. But allowing requiring a jar to add it to the internal
classloaders/classpath seems strange.

Anyone else want to make a case for why I'm wrong? I'm willing to
discuss it.

Adam S. wrote:
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
David K. (Guest)
on 2009-05-11 21:15
(Received via mailing list)
I'm with you Charlie, I don't see any reason to implicitly
support .zip file requires.  As stated in the ticket, you can use
$CLASSPATH << "/my/zip/file.zip" to add it on your classpath or rename
the file to .jar, neither of which seems very onerous for an edge case.

David K.

On May 11, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Charles Oliver N. wrote:

> The only thing I might see value in would be allowing any zip-
>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:07 AM, rob08 <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>> structured
>>> Anyway, of course it's jruby dev's call.  Just putting my case
>>> forward....
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.