Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Is there any reason for URLClassLoader.addURL to be protected? I am asking this becuase I need to write a custom class load by extending the URLClassLoader and all it does is to call this protected method to add a jar file. If this wasn’t pretected, then it could have been easier to add jar file dynamically.
Adding a new URL to a classloader is typically an abstraction-violating action, and can cause inexplicable things to happen. It is therefore hidden from normal usage.
You have an unusual use-case in which you have (I assume) concluded that the encapsulation violation is the lesser of the evils, and that it is OK to allow any part of an application to tinker with the innards of its parent classloader. Fair enough. And creating a custom classloader is the way to do this. But most folks wouldn’t want that to happen.