> I was wondering if there is an argument against using initialize == > true in all cases?
Here are a couple of examples, in the strictly java world (java programming language and vm) when you want initialize to be false. The idiomatic use case being byte code analysis * FindBugs * Code obfuscators In these cases you do not want the static block to execute. Thanks Bhaskar On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 26, 11:18 am, "Stephen C. Gilardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> RT/classForName currently hardwires the "initialize" option of >> Class.forName to false. In working with jdbc drivers, the need to >> initialize classes in some circumstances came up--in some JRE >> configurations, the driver class needs to be initialized explicitly to >> work. >> >> I don't understand all the subtleties of class loading, but I gather >> from previous discussions here that it's good practice for Clojure to >> provide a class loader and for Clojure code to use it in the absence >> of a compelling reason not to. Use of Class.forName directly is (at >> least mildly) discouraged. >> >> To address both of those concerns, classForName-initialize.patch >> (uploaded to the group and in-line below) changes RT.java to expose an >> optional "initialize" flag for RT/classForName. >> >> After the change, existing calls to RT/classForName will work as they >> always have, but callers that need to ensure the class is initialized >> are now able to. >> > > I was wondering if there is an argument against using initialize == > true in all cases? > > Rich > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
