Hi,
I agree in that we should have something that makes mapping from
Java reflection to BCEL easier, maybe someone should volunteer
for an adapter class ...
However, the adapter would just wrap the ugly details, the
implementation
probably wouldn't look much different, since you have no other choice.
(Do you?)
Going via the signature is simple and proven to be working.
The Modifier flags should in fact be exactly the same as the ones used
in BCEL
since they also stem from the JVM spec.
Cheers
Markus
> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Andreas Schlapbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Februar 2002 11:06
> An: BCEL Users List
> Betreff: Re: AW: Reflection && BCEL - Types
>
>
> Dear Markus
>
> My approach currently is
>
> private Type java2BCELType(Class aClass) {
> Type returnType = null;
> if (aClass == void.class) { // !?
> returnType = Type.VOID;
> ...
> } else if (!(aClass.isPrimitive())) {
> returnType = Type.OBJECT;
> }
> }
>
> which just is ugly. You're approach seems simplier, but what I'm not
> liking is that you have to map types via Strings:
>
> Type = Type.getType(Utility.getSignature(aClass.getName()))
>
> is what you're proposing, right?
>
> There are similar issues with converting
>
> java.lang.reflect.Modiifer to int access_flags
>
> Please get me right, I'm not complainig, I'm just interested
> in doing it
> right :)
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
> And thus spoke * [EMAIL PROTECTED]*:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Neither void, nor int are "classes" of course, but primitive types.
> > Type objects for primitive types are listed in the Type class, e.g.,
> > Type.INT
> >
> > If you want to map the String "int" to a sigature, use
> > Utility.getSignature() which
> > will yield "I". To convert a signature to a Type object you can then
> > say Type.getType(sig).
> >
> > Cheers
> > Markus
> > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Andreas Schlapbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 25. Februar 2002 20:11
> > > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Betreff: Reflection && BCEL - Types
> > >
> > >
> > > <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family:
> -moz-fixed">Hi List
> > >
> > > I'm using BCEL to subclass existing classes and
> interfaces on the fly.
> > > So I use java reflection to gain insight on the to be subclassed
> > > classes. But I'm not sure how to effectly map the java
> types to BCEL.
> > >
> > > For example:
> > >
> > > class A {
> > > void b(int a);
> > > }
> > >
> > > returns a Class of type 'void' as return type and a Class
> > > 'int' as it's
> > > argument type. (This part of JAVA is, let's say, strange :))
> > >
> > > If I want to subclass from A and overwrite b I need to
> > > generate a class
> > > B and a method b with exactly this signature.
> > >
> > > But the MethodGen classes uses it's own Type system.
> > >
> > > Now, is there an easy way to map this java types on to
> the BCEL types?
> > > From looking at the API and the source I couldn't find
> a smooth way.
> > >
> > > Something like
> > > |*
> > > MethodGen <cid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*(int
> > > access_flags,
> > > Class return_type,
> > > Class[] arg_types,
> > > java.lang.String[] arg_names,
> > > java.lang.String method_name,
> > > java.lang.String class_name,
> > > InstructionList
> <cid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> il,
> > > ConstantPoolGen
> <cid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cp)|
> > >
> > > would be nice.
> > >
> > > Or is there a better approach?
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > > --
> > > I think, so IAM.
> > >
> > > Andreas Schlapbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~schlpbch
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > </div>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
>
> --
> 0xCAFEBABE & !0xDEADBEAF
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
