On Aug 8, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Charles Moulliard wrote: > 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/) ?
Pretty much. Slower, consumes more memory and generally overkill. The code to create a subclass with ASM is basically one class -- two or three if you want to get fancy. > 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 ? Certainly no impact to user code. If someone has some very deep OWB integration code that digs right down into the proxy layer, they're welcome to speak up. We can easily hold the show and discuss. -David > 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
