As I previously blogged, 0.32 has a new class loading architecture. I promised to explain the architecture, but I accidentally deleted the blog post I wrote about it a while ago and I didn't feel like rewriting it straight away, but I still need to do it, so here it is ;-)
The Basic Idea
Every .NET assembly has its own corresponding ClassLoader instance. This is true for assemblies generated with ikvmc as well as other .NET languages. The class loader instance corresponding to an assembly is known as the assembly class loader. It does not have a parent class loader (
ClassLoader.getParent() returns null), but it does do a form of delegation. When the assembly class loader is used to load a class or resource, first it will search the corresponding assembly, if that doesn't result in the requested item, the assemblies directly referenced by the assembly are searched (and if that also doesn't find the item, the IKVM.GNU.Classpath assembly is searched).
The System Class Loader
By default the system class loader will be set to the assembly class loader of the main application executable assembly. If there is no main executable assembly (e.g. the main executable is unmanaged or the AppDomain was created without one) or the
java.ext.dirs properties are set, then a
URLClassLoader that searches the classpath is used. This means that in most scenarios no dynamic Java class loading is enabled by default. This also means that you don't have to worry about your application being affected by the
CLASSPATH environment variable as set on the system where the application runs (which previously could -- and did -- result in hard to diagnose problems on some systems with a weird
Dynamically Loading a Class
Class.forName() just works if the class loader it uses (and, like Java, it uses the class loader that loaded the calling class) can find the class. It can also be used to load classes from assemblies that are not referenced by any class loader that is already available. This is done by specifying the assembly qualified name of the type (in .NET form, without the cli prefix). Here's an example:
public static void main(String args) throws Exception
Class c = Class.forName("System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox, " +
"System.Windows.Forms, " +
"Version=1.0.5000.0, " +
"Culture=neutral, " +
c.getMethod("Show", String.class).invoke(null, "Hello, World!");
One nice benefit of the new architecture is that it is now possible for two (or more) different versions of a jar to be loaded and used in the same AppDomain. Previously that would sort of work, but it would break down if the code used Class.forName() or tried to load resources. However, now the class loader namespaces can be fully seperated (you still can't have a single assembly that directly references two versions of the same code, but indirectly it works fine.) Here's an example of an application that uses two different assemblies that both depend on different versions of the same assembly:
The rectangles represent assemblies and the ovals represent class loaders. The pink oval is the assembly class loader for App.exe and can see classes in both Foo.dll and Bar.dll, but won't be able to see any classes from either of the Widgets assemblies. The yellow oval is the assembly class loader of Foo.dll and it allows Foo.dll to see the correct version of Widgets.dll, but not the other one (nor any classes in App.exe, unless it uses the system class loader). Each Widgets.dll assembly will also have its own assembly class loader (not shown in the diagram) and that will only be able to load classes from the corresponding Widgets assembly.
The limitations of the Java class loading architecture have long been known and several hacks have been developed to work around some of those limitations, but it is clearly desirable (at least to some people) to replace the current architecture with something better. JSR 277 is trying to define that new architecture. I believe that the architecture that IKVM 0.32 introduced is very similar to what JSR 277 is going to end up like, so in the future it should be possible to support JSR 277 without any major changes. Also, if your Java code requires changes to be compatible with the IKVM architecture, it almost certainly will require similar changes to deal with JSR 277 and making these changes now will make it easier to migrate to JSR 277 based modules in the future.