commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <>
Subject Re: [logging] tech.xml - child-first classloading not considered harmful
Date Wed, 04 May 2005 17:39:15 GMT

Isn't the term child-first a misnomer? A class loader can't be a child of 
itself? Can it?

IMO, the term "parent-last" is an improvement over child-first, 
"parent-second" being even a little more precise.

At 19:37 5/4/2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 07:58 -0700, Mike Colbert wrote:
> > As an aside, isn't "child-first" really a misnomer and it's more like
> > "parent-last"?  Assuming the parent is at the top of the hierarchy, 
> child-first
> > implies (to me), that the heirarchy is walked downwardly from the 
> parent, not
> > upwardly from the bottom.
>oh, if only it were all so simple :)
>real life classloader hierarchies can (and regularly do) mix the two
>types. so, it's really only possible to talk about the behaviour of a
>single classloader.
>- robert

Ceki Gülcü

   The complete log4j manual:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message