Pretty sure you didn't intend to drop the list; adding back. ;) Using BCEL to do the dirty work could be an option, though I confess I wouldn't mind seeing that done for a v1.1. The codebase-formerly-known-as-privileged-method-weaver feels as much to me like part of the current BCEL as a plumber does a box of pipe wrenches; i.e. this feels to me like confusing the container for the thing contained. I'm not *vehemently* opposed to a restructured BCEL with a core and various tool modules, but such would be the only direction I could see that would include this codebase as "part of" BCEL.
Matt On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Matt, > > Byte code twiddling could be seen to fit nicely in BCEL, which is already > a Commons project and could use some fresh blood. [privilege] (easier to > type for me) would be a specific application for BCEL so it would be be as > nicely layered on top on BCEL as much as on the side. And you'd loose the > ASM aspect. Thinking about the eating of the dog food, I would love to see > BCEL revitalized, which would also help Xalan, another BCEL user. > > If we do not want to go that route, then we can discuss improving on the > name. > > Gary > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Gary, >> Feel free to suggest one or more alternate names, and we can vote on >> them! The intent is to quickly convey that the component "equips your code >> to run in a Java security constrained environment," thus "privilizer" or >> "that which makes your code privileged." Since the main use of the >> component is to instrument compiled code during the build process (a >> possible future enhancement is to support RT enhancement in a custom >> classloader), I don't see that it fits into any existing component, but am >> open to correction. >> >> Thanks for your interest, >> Matt >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Another aspect to consider is would this new "privalizer" component (not >>> crazy about the name ATM) fit in an existing Commons component? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> As long as I've been part of the Commons community I don't know that >>>> I've >>>> encountered this exact situation: a committer adds some code to the >>>> sandbox that is more or less complete. I don't know precisely what >>>> requirements must be met before we promote [privilizer] to proper. We >>>> seem >>>> to have interest from one or more members of the PMC as prospective >>>> users; >>>> this would seem to imply that were I hit by a bus there ought to be >>>> someone >>>> interested in maintaining the component. Speaking for BVal I intend to >>>> put >>>> this component to immediate use there (that's what I wrote it for!). >>>> Mark >>>> has mentioned that OWB and perhaps other ASF projects might want to make >>>> use of it. What else do I need to do? >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 >>> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK >>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>> >> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
