On 21 August 2013 14:48, Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote: > Nick, > > On 8/20/13 8:24 PM, Nick Williams wrote: >> I ran in to a roadblock with this idea. Part of the byte code of a >> class includes the fully-qualified class name. If I create a class, >> say UnweavedClass, and replace its byte code in my fake transformer >> with that of another class, the FQCN changes. This results in a >> NoClassDefFoundError because the class loader is looking for >> UnweavenClass in be in the byte code when really some other class >> is. >> >> 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. > > Any reason not to simply compile some .java source into a .class file > and read it from the disk instead of shoving it into a byte array? > There's nothing stopping you from doing an offline-compile of a .java > file into a .class file and committing both to svn. You don't have to > compile the .java source as part of the test -- just load it off disk as > part of the test. > > This will allow easier inspection of the .class file, and not be such a > pain in the neck to change the bytecode if necessary.
Is there any mileage in using the features of JSR199? > -chris > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
