Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Dave, we'd still appreciate your comment on BCEL-209 if you can take a look: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-209 Thanks, Ben On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 23/02/2015 14:11, Dave Brosius a écrit : > > > One specific case is that annotations are now comin

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Le 23/02/2015 14:11, Dave Brosius a écrit : > One specific case is that annotations are now coming in as annotations > as opposed to unknown code attributes. Code that relies on parsing > annotations thru unknown code attributes will break. Thank you for the insight Dave, I'll add that to the rel

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

6.0 already has breaking changes, thus the move to version 6.0. One specific case is that annotations are now coming in as annotations as opposed to unknown code attributes. Code that relies on parsing annotations thru unknown code attributes will break. On 02/23/2015 07:30 AM, Ben McCann w

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Ok, thanks. The part I wasn't sure about is if that was the only breaking change. It sounds like you're saying the other changes aren't breaking. -Ben On Feb 22, 2015 11:14 PM, "Emmanuel Bourg" wrote: > Le 23/02/2015 05:39, Ben McCann a écrit : > > > Are many of your changes breaking backward co

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Le 23/02/2015 05:39, Ben McCann a écrit : > Are many of your changes breaking backward compatibility? I'm wondering if > there are only a few that do if we could prioritize them in order to get a > 6.0 release out with the rest of the changes coming in a 6.1. Hi Ben, I think we already answered

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Hi Mark, Are many of your changes breaking backward compatibility? I'm wondering if there are only a few that do if we could prioritize them in order to get a 6.0 release out with the rest of the changes coming in a 6.1. Thanks, Ben On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > I am

RE: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

I am going to try to spend most of today working on BCEL; I am currently looking at 195, 200,203,208 and 210. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.

RE: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

I've probably missed something - but I think I've got all of our (PLSE) changes into the jira database. I'm going to look at the signatureToString issue now. Thanks to everybody who helped me along the way... Mark - To uns

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Le 04/02/2015 20:57, Mark Roberts a écrit : > I would like to reopen BCEL-79, but I'm new to JIRA and I can't figure out > how to do it.Reopen does not appear to be one of the choices on the drop > down tools menu. Could someone let me know how to do this? I reopened it, you can go ahead.

RE: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

amin.j.mcc...@gmail.com [mailto:benjamin.j.mcc...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ben McCann Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 10:49 AM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL BCEL-79 has not been reopened yet The new issues have been filed as BCEL-187 <https://issues.apache.or

RE: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Mark Roberts [mailto:mar...@cs.washington.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 11:09 AM To: 'Commons Developers List' Subject: RE: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL Thank you for setting these up for me! I am going to attach my diffs today. I would really like to see this material in 6.0.

RE: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

f Ben McCann Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 10:49 AM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL BCEL-79 has not been reopened yet The new issues have been filed as BCEL-187 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-187> through BCEL-193 <https://issues.a

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

BCEL-79 has not been reopened yet The new issues have been filed as BCEL-187 through BCEL-193 . Are any of these blocking the 6.0 release or do you think we might be able to cut that now? Thanks, Ben

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Le 27/01/2015 05:36, Mark Roberts a écrit : > To repeat - constructing the local variables from the local variable types > is totally bogus. I have no idea how that fixed the original problem but > it is clearly incorrect. Ok, could you reopen BCEL-79 and copy your comment in JIRA please? Would

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Le 27/01/2015 05:02, Mark Roberts a écrit : > Which takes us to another question I was going to ask - is there a BCEL test > suite? 'mvn verify' is ok for build verification - but it doesn't begin to > cover the bases of what the api can do - especially in the area of code > modification. You ca

RE: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

In our opinion, the fix is worse than the disease. Here are the comments from our version: The following piece of code is new since our 5.2 based version. It was added in revision 524610 on 2007-04-01, more information is at: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39695 (no

RE: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

I understand the goal of trying to reuse instructions - an 'iadd' is the same as any other 'iadd'. However, one 'goto 50' is not the same as another 'goto 50' due to the way Targeters are implemented. If branch instructions are reused, then only one entry gets put on the Targeter list. So when s

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Thank you for the detailed summary Mark. Le 26/01/2015 19:02, Mark Roberts a écrit : > I'm currently not familiar with your release process and, hence, not sure > what sorts of changes you are willing to consider at this time. I thought I > would start with a rough outline of all of our change

RE: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Developers List Subject: Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL The only caveat here, since we are going for a major version bump is whether you have some proposal for changes that would be binary incompatible with 5.x, which we should therefore consider for 6.0. Gary

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Mark, This is awesome info. Thank you for taking the time to compile it. My preference would be to finalize and cut 6.0 ASAP, then start a new cycle. I am a RERO proponent. The only caveat here, since we are going for a major version bump is whether you have some proposal for changes that would

RE: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

mmons Developers List Subject: Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL Out of curiosity, what was the reason you rolled your own as opposed to engaging with the community on these changes? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-uns

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Attaching a patch (or pull request) to a JIRA would be a great way for one of us to take a look at what you have. This is great stuff, man! We are always glad to have new folks come in and provide patches. Out of curiosity, what was the reason you rolled your own as opposed to engaging with the c

[bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

I'm currently not familiar with your release process and, hence, not sure what sorts of changes you are willing to consider at this time. I thought I would start with a rough outline of all of our changes and then the group could suggest which ones I should open in JIRA. We cloned a version of