Because we decided to shade asm, so it was no problem to use also for interfaces. So we only have one implementation which handels interceptor handling etc.
2016-02-12 14:15 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > Not exactly. If unclear read my question as: why do we *require* asm now. > Before we were falling back on bytecode generation only when needed, ie not > for interfaces. Why did we decided to break that? > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber > <http://www.tomitribe.com> > > 2016-02-12 13:57 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>: > > > The proxy module provides an impl and wrapper for ASM5. An alternate > impl > > can be provided. > > > > It needs to be able to support interfaces, abstract classes and concrete > > classes. > > > > John > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:54 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > seems we can't use data module without asm proxies. Is it intended? I > > kind > > > of liked the fact to rely on JVM proxies and don't see any real reason > to > > > not continue since we rely on InvocationHandler where interceptors can > be > > > handled. > > > > > > What do I miss? > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber > > > <http://www.tomitribe.com> > > > > > >
