hmmm
basically +1 if we can solve the protected/package scoping by a fallback
lets wait about mark's opinion?
Am Di., 11. Juni 2019 um 11:23 Uhr schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> Hi guys,
>
> Do we want to add an option to switch to a classloader based proxy
> definition?
>
> Idea is that instead of using reflection or unsafe to define our proxies we
> create a class loader - likely in WebBeansContext and shared accross all
> AbstractProxyFactories. It looks like (ignore the visibility, I took it
> from a poc as a nested class):
>
> private static class InternalClassLoader extends ClassLoader {
> private final ConcurrentMap<String, Class<?>> classes = new
> ConcurrentHashMap<>();
>
> private InternalClassLoader(final ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {
> super(applicationClassLoader);
> }
>
>
> @Override
> protected Class<?> loadClass(final String name, final boolean
> resolve) throws ClassNotFoundException {
> final Class<?> clazz = classes.get(name);
> if (clazz == null) {
> return getParent().loadClass(name);
> }
> return clazz;
> }
>
> private Class<?> getOrRegister(final String proxyClassName, final
> byte[] proxyBytes) {
> return classes.computeIfAbsent(
> proxyClassName.replace('/', '.'),
> n -> {
> final Class<?> defined =
> super.defineClass(proxyClassName, proxyBytes, 0, proxyBytes.length);
> resolveClass(defined);
> return defined;
> });
> }
> }
>
>
> Then AbstractProxyFactory would make getProxyClass behaving as - assuming
> we have proxies the instance of this classloader:
>
> return proxies;.
>
> I suspect it can need to use that classloader instead of TCCL for
> deserialization but it is not a big deal too.
>
> The big advantage is to work on java >= 9 without warning (WARNING: Illegal
> reflective access ) but it has a disavantage to not support
> protected/package scope proxying (since we use 2 classloaders).
>
> If we want to be clever we could use both strategies at the same time, i.e.
> if we can proxy through this classloader then we do, otherwise we keep
> current impl.
>
> Any opinion? i'd really like to have a clean run on java 11 for 2.0.12 or
> 2.0.13, even if we must add a few limitations like this visibility thing.
>
> wdyt?
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
