Dalibor Topic wrote:
As for bytecode libraries, I'd prefer ASM, again since it seems to be
already packaged by Debian, while oddly enough neither Kawa not gnu
bytecode seem to be, so I'd go with the more ubiquitous option.
Well, Kawa is packaged by Fedora 5 now ...
There is no inherent reason why duplication is a problem - after
all the standard Java libraries are chock-full of duplication:
java.io vs nio; Java2 format vs Java 5 format; StringBuffer vs
StringBuilder; collections framework vs lots of other things;
sax vs dom vs stax; etc etc.
I don't know ASM very well, but does seem to provide an elegant
streaming model suitable for various transformation. It might also
be a good for printing the content of class files - I don't know.
(As a developer, I want something that allows me to print *all*
the information in a class file, including constant pool, all
the attributes, etc.)
The strength of gnu.bytecode is code generation. I don't think any
other framework comes close in terms of its combination of speed,
low memory overhead. ease-of-use, ability to generate excellent code
including debugging information, and other convenient features for
compiler-writers. (As it should, since I depend on it for Kawa.)
Now whether that justifies its inclusion in classpath-tools somebody
else will have to judge.
Mark Wirlaard wrote:
> And it seems we need very specific/altered versions of both (!).
If there are classpath-specific patches in gnu.bytecode I would be
happy to either merge them in or propose alternative solutions.
--
--Per Bothner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://per.bothner.com/
