+1 for ASM, we only use direct byte code manipulation anyway. LieGrue, strub
----- Original Message ----- > From: Charles Moulliard <ch0...@gmail.com> > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 8:36 AM > Subject: Re: javassist removal > > Hi David, > > Is it for performance reasons that you prefer to switch from Javassist to > ASM (http://swapnil84.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/asm-vs-javassist/) ? What > could be the impact for existing projects (or side effect) when they will > upgrade to a "refactored" version of OpenWebbeans using ASM and not > longer > javassist ? > > Regards, > > Charles > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:27 AM, David Blevins > <david.blev...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hey All, >> >> Heads up that I'd like to investigate removing javassist and replacing > it >> with some simple ASM code to create subclass based proxies. The proxy code >> is the small part, the bigger part is refactoring out the MethodHandler >> classes and replacing them with java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler >> implementations. >> >> As usual I'll probably look for an intermediary step in refactoring it >> out, maybe some way to keep the MethodHandlers and get all the code working >> with a different proxy impl, then refactor the handlers. >> >> Any thoughts or comments welcome. >> >> >> -David >> >> > > > -- > Charles Moulliard > Apache Committer / Sr. Pr. Consultant at FuseSource.com > Twitter : @cmoulliard > Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com >
