Does this change the semantics of `local://`? I thought previously local jars didn't need to be present in that particular location on the driver. The javadoc for addJar should be updated here. Actually maybe we should not include `local://` jars here and we should add a note in that javadoc that if you use `local://` they won't be added on the driver. This would make sense, because if they are already on the driver you should just use `file://` right?