+1 regards, gerhard
2012/8/9 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > +1 for ASM, we only use direct byte code manipulation anyway. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Charles Moulliard <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > 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 > > <[email protected]>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 > > >
