Re: Patch: core protocol take 2

["Anthony Green" <green at redhat dot com>]

Tom wrote:
> Anthony> +static core_chain *root;
>
> Should references to this be synchronized?

Ah, yes.  This whole bit of code should be rewritten so that we maintain these
things per ClassLoader, and not globally.  I'd rather check it in first (with
the synchronized root).

> Is this code really needed?
> I think we can just access the core handler via the Class.forName code
> after this `if' -- that is, only the file handler needs a special
> case.

Yes, you're right.

Ok with these changes?


BTW - perhaps we should also add
    -Wl,-u,_ZN3gnu3gcj8protocol4core7Handler6class$E
to libgcj.spec so that we always force it in.  I think the core protocol is
cool for embedded systems, but I forsee confusion if we rely on Class.forName
and don't force the protocol handler into the link.

AG