On Jun 6, 2011, at 6:25 AM, Richard Ellis wrote: > I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in making my point, which I believe has now > been clarified by Tim. It was in fact that the specific Aries proxy > methods under discussion were marked final for a reason other than > performance and that reason was so that they could not be overridden.
My reading of Tim's explanation seemed to find semantic benefit (and additional validity testing) within the Aries project. Marking the methods synthetic would seem to be sufficient (by our own proxy rules) for indicating that external proxying technology should keep their mitts off the methods. So, I'm not sure what additional benefit it's providing to external projects... If synthetic is sufficient, why over-specify? A minor (according to JIT developers) performance improvement? I'd welcome any hard performance data, BTW... We've found one project that this *will* cause problems for (now fixed in their dev trunk). Will not be surprised as other problematic projects are found. For what benefit? Anyway, I'm done with the subject. Assume that David will be reverting his change --kevan
