> On Sep 30, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 3. keep it like that > 4. use an "asm.*" package crossing fingers > > I'd love 4 but I fear it can create issue quickly when I see what java is > becoming so, personally, i think 3 is safe but since we are at "that" moment > I'd like to get your feedback.
Like you I like 4, but 3 is probably the smartest option. I didn't care for option 3 when Mark suggested it years ago, but in hindsight it has worked out very well. Truthfully, if the ASM versioned their own packages like that, we wouldn't need to shade it all and neither would anyone. -David
