From: Samuele P. <ped...@op...> - 2007-05-11 14:51:52
|
Frank Wierzbicki wrote: > On 4/29/07, Frank Wierzbicki <fwi...@gm...> wrote: >> On 4/29/07, Samuele Pedroni <ped...@op...> wrote: >> > if we already do that, using a new classloader for each generated >> class. >> > That's the purpose of >> > the various BytecodeLoader classes. > While we are talking about custom classloaders, what do you think will > be involved for us to modify the existing codebase to allow for > environments where we cannot use custom classloaders (for example, > unsigned applets)? This is an important use case (at least for some) > that we should consider for the jythonc/regular jython unification. well the think that jythonc did for that case is pre-generate proxy classes for java classes it detects are subclassed by the code it compiles, also it gives them recognizable names. This will need some special handling because the normal compiler simply let this happen lazily at runtime, we need a way to force such generation in some cases, or at least to ask for it. |