This content has been marked as final.
Show 5 replies
-
1. Re: Should VirtualFile.toURL() really return
bill.burke Oct 20, 2006 6:30 PM (in response to bill.burke)Also, I would hate for HEM to have to have this additional configuration step. We could set the system property within a static {} block I guess...
-
2. Re: Should VirtualFile.toURL() really return
starksm64 Oct 20, 2006 7:02 PM (in response to bill.burke)It can be set the same way as in jboss today so that they can be overriden, and won't interfere with any existing settings:
// Include the default JBoss protocol handler package String handlerPkgs = System.getProperty("java.protocol.handler.pkgs"); if (handlerPkgs != null) { handlerPkgs += "|org.jboss.net.protocol"; } else { handlerPkgs = "org.jboss.net.protocol"; } System.setProperty("java.protocol.handler.pkgs", handlerPkgs);
It should be part of the vfs initialization default code. -
3. Re: Should VirtualFile.toURL() really return
starksm64 Oct 20, 2006 7:03 PM (in response to bill.burke)"bill.burke@jboss.com" wrote:
My thought is that should VirtualFile.toURL() really return a "vfsfile" based url?
Yes. -
4. Re: Should VirtualFile.toURL() really return
bill.burke Oct 23, 2006 10:17 AM (in response to bill.burke)My concern was not a JBoss environment, but a Hibernate plugged into WLS, Webshpere, or Glassfish.
-
5. Re: Should VirtualFile.toURL() really return
starksm64 Oct 23, 2006 11:33 AM (in response to bill.burke)Yes, I understand. There still should be a default initialization (that can be disabled) in the vfs factory impl. If there is an alternate mechanism in env x to setup the url protocol handlers, that still will be usable.