On 19 nov 2012, at 13:35, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 19/11/2012 11:15, Staffan Larsen wrote: >> : >> I think you are right that bytecode instrumentation would also work. The >> only problem I see (apart from the path field) is the time it would take to >> develop such a solution. I'm not sure if that is a good enough argument for >> keeping the non-bytecode-instrumentation solution, though. Or if we could >> replace the non-bytecode-instrumentation solution with an updated bytecode >> instrumentation solution in a later update? Not ideal, but would allow us to >> complete the project on time. >> > I'd go along with that, assuming of course that the changes to use bytecode > instrumentation aren't pushed out indefinitely. The original plan was for the code in this review to go into both 8 and 7u12. Since 7u12 has a tighter deadline, a possible path would be to include it only in 7u12, but not in 8. For 8 we would then implement a fully dynamic solution. The only thing needed in 8 from this review would be the path field added to the stream classes. Does that sound like a plan? Thanks, /Staffan
