Yes, that's a perfect solution.
(sorry, it's annonying...)
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3863380#3863380
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3863380
--
So to avoid this problem, i could work around by producing sth like
| ...
| newname((Type1)$1, (Type2)$2, ...)
| ...
|
Or wouldnt this help anyway?!?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3862808#3862808
Reply to the post :
http://www.jbos
Although $proceed does not imply this problem,
newname($$);
would do. I agree this is a bug, which should be fixed
soon.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3862737#3862737
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting
1) Ok ... in this case i can surely wait, as i m just going to copy methods
and not trying to create new ones.
2) Thx for the example. How is the behaviour if i m performing "wrapping"
like in
"Java programming dynamics, Part 4: Class transformation with
Javassist"
by Dennis
Hi,
1) The limitation is not applied to copied bytecode.
The tutorial says that the compiler does not understand
synchronized. However, the upcoming release 3.0
supports a synchronized statement. So please download
CVS HEAD or wait for several days. We are going to release
3.0 soon.
2) For exa
