While I did some work with ASM I found it very nice to work with ...and so I wanted get rid of a direct BCEL dependency. Which
Fyi, I'm working on porting the current BCEL ClassTransformer over to ASM.
Awesome news! Thanks for the effort!
...but for now I think rewriting on the package name is quite a useable alternative that probably will fit the real world requirements.
You have mentioned this before, but I don't understand how you envision this working. Does this mean that a class originally in package com.foo.abc would be rewritten to rewritten.package.name by the transformer? I'm fairly sure that I am not interpreting your idea correctly because this will almost certainly cause problems for instances of that class if they need to access package protected methods and fields in other classes. If you could go into a bit of detail on this, it would be super.
Sorry, for the late response...
...yes, you got the idea wrong :)
What I was talking is about defining the packages that need to be rewritten. Like you define all classes that start with "com.mystuff.flow." are meant to be rewritten (as the most simple example).
So basically defining rewriting on the package level. I think that's fine grained enough for a real world scenario. ...and it keeps things simple.
cheers -- Torsten
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
