On 21/08/2013 01:24, Nick Williams wrote: > My backup idea is slightly less clean but, IMO, still more clean than adding > ASM as a test-time dependency and trying to figure all of that out. I locally > compiled fake "weaved" versions of the UnweavedClass (with the modified > behavior) and then translated each version into a Java byte array definition. > (These are extremely simple on-line, one-method classes, so the byte arrays > are relatively short.) I then simply embedded the byte array definitions as > static final byte[] fields the test class and replaced the byte code in my > fake transformer with those embedded fields' content. I've tested this and it > works great. > > Here's what the embedded byte code for the fake weaved classes looks like. > What do you think? Is this acceptable?
Works for me. It is pretty much exactly what I was going to suggest as I read your mail. My only request would be to keep the class (and hence the byte code) as short as possible. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
