So that it does not mess up with the different version of the library that the user is trying to use.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Ben Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > OK - I'm going to bite. > > Why are we doing this? If we're shipping a general purpose bytecode > manipulation library, then why is it private? > > Surely this should become an official, supported & public API? > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Remi Forax <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 02/17/2015 08:30 PM, Mark Roos wrote: >> >> I see that jdk8 now includes a copy of ASM (jdk.internal.org.objectweb.asm). >> >> Is it recommended to use that instance vs suppling a copy with my >> application? >> >> thanks >> mark >> >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> These classes are not the one you are looking for :) >> >> As the 'internal' in the package name suggest, these classes are intended to >> be used by the JDK classes only, and not by anyone else. >> BTW, these classes are not visible anymore in jdk9 (even by reflection). >> >> regards, >> Rémi >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mlvm-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > mlvm-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev -- Debasish Ray Chawdhuri http://www.geekyarticles.com/ [A collection of advanced articles on java] _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
