[jboss-dev] Re: Commons-logging upgrade

[Brian Stansberry]

So, 2 issues:

1) Do we remove org.apache.commons.logging from FilteredPackages?

I've attached 2 files showing what happens if you do this in 4.0.5 and
4.0.2 and then deploy a war with commons-logging.jar included.  The
4.0.2 one shows a JaccContextValve failure that was likely the thing
that led to filtering the packages.

In 4.2, this works fine.

IMHO, if a quick perusal of the attached files by you and Scott isn't
enough to decide to remove the filtering of JCL packages, we should
leave them filtered. That's a conservative approach, which is fine when
we have lots of other things to worry about.

2) Patching JCL 1.1 to do late binding of log4j.  That's useful, if for
nothing else to support consistent behavior from 4.0.x to 4.2.0 for wars
that bundle log4j but not commons-logging.jar. Definitely needed if we
decide to keep the jcl package filtering. The JIRA to do the patch was
assigned by you to you, so I guess you volunteered ;)

You're my boss, so feel free to assign it to me. :-) But I won't touch
it until the EJB3 stuff and shared sessions are done.

Dimitris Andreadis wrote:
> Right, so who will volunteer to get this sorted out ? :)
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jboss-development-bounces at lists.jboss.org
>> [mailto:jboss-development-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of
>> Scott M Stark Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:31 AM
>> To: JBoss.org development list
>> Subject: Re: [jboss-dev] Re: Commons-logging upgrade
>> 
>> Its required in general to avoid java ee classes from being visible.
>> Specificially for the jcl classes, it should not be required.
>> I'm hesitant to say it can be dropped though since the problem is a
>> function of the runtime class loader hierarchy that shows up for the
>> various component creation/initial use patterns. I guess I need to
>> reproduce the original issue to understand why its not happening now.
>> 
>> Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>> jboss-development-bounces at lists.jboss.org wrote: ...
>>> 
>>> Yes. I didn't mean to imply the late binding patch no longer had
>>> value; just that allowing the loading of JCL classes from the war
>>> removes a large category of cases where it is needed. I also wanted
>>> to hijack the thread a bit to get into whether the
>> FilteredPackages was still needed.
>>> :-)
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-development mailing list
>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development



Brian Stansberry
Lead, AS Clustering
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Ph: 510-396-3864
skype: bstansberry
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: 405-jcl-failure.txt
Url: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-development/attachments/20070124/6e2a3c3d/attachment.txt 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 402-jcl-failure
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 93675 bytes
Desc: 402-jcl-failure
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-development/attachments/20070124/6e2a3c3d/attachment.obj