Torsten Curdt wrote:
While I did some work with ASM I found it very nice to work with ...and so I wanted get rid of a direct BCEL dependency. Which
Fyi, I'm working on porting the current BCEL ClassTransformer over to ASM.
...but for now I think rewriting on the package name is quite a useable alternative that probably will fit the real world requirements.
You have mentioned this before, but I don't understand how you envision this working. Does this mean that a class originally in package com.foo.abc would be rewritten to rewritten.package.name by the transformer? I'm fairly sure that I am not interpreting your idea correctly because this will almost certainly cause problems for instances of that class if they need to access package protected methods and fields in other classes. If you could go into a bit of detail on this, it would be super.
phil.
--
Whirlycott
Philip Jacob
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
