On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> answers inline > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > > > 2013/7/28 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> > >> Interesting patch. I have some questions and comments: >> >> - You'd additionally need to make sure the impl class is non-final, no? >> > > hmm, good question i didn't check but with asm we can subclass final > classes, hehe > We can? How devious... well, then strike my question. > > >> - note to others that asm4-shaded is used because asm didn't change >> packages from v3. Good to see this in use; I hadn't kept track after >> submitting that patch. ;-) >> > > i used asm4 since that's the more up to date and it supports java 7 very > well. The shade was used since provided in tomee and owb but real asm > should be fine (see next point) > > >> - Would you explain the purpose of the AsmFacade class? Much of the "nuts >> and bolts" work of the patch seems quite different from what I perceive as >> "typical asm client code." >> > > i first wrote it with asm imports but a common issue is: do i use asm? > spring-asm-shade? xbean-asm-shade? so AsmFacade is an utility class to > allow to use whatever impl is here (almost). > > While I find this to be interesting and quite clever, I feel like it's maybe too much. For one point, have you tried searching the web for meaningful examples of ASM code? It's not that easy IMO. I think it'd be nicer for our ASM code to exemplify "normal" ASM as much as possible. I'd say it'd be enough to write the basic impl against stock asm4. If we wanted we could then provide one artifact that shades asm4, and another that rewrites the compiled classes to depend on xbean-shaded-asm4, and surely that would be enough for users to get by with. Then our code would be more intelligible as well as useful from the perspective of helping other devs learn from good examples. Back to the subject of cglib, do you expect this implementation should >> significantly outperform it for any reason ( if so, which? ), or is the >> main motivation that cglib is almost dead as you say? >> > > since cglib is dead we need something else and i expect the impl to be > faster than javassist. Another nice side effect is no dep in a container > providing asm. > > I am taking this as still saying, yes, the ASM proxy implementation might not be any faster than cglib. ;) Which is fine. Thanks! Matt > Thanks and regards, >> Matt >> On Jul 28, 2013 10:58 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> here is a patch implementing proxying using ASM: >>> https://gist.github.com/rmannibucau/6099063 >>> >>> having the handlers used by default in ProxyFactory protected would >>> avoid to copy them in ASMProxyFactory. >>> >>> *Romain Manni-Bucau* >>> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* >>> *Blog: >>> **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> >>> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* >>> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/7/28 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> Cglib is "almost" dead if i'm right, javassist is alive but not that >>>> stable and owb is faster ATM and at least would bring an Apache impl >>>> adapted to [proxy]. >>>> >>>> Note: the fact to be able to reuse InvocationHandler and not a new API >>>> is great too >>>> Le 27 juil. 2013 20:13, "Matt Benson" <gudnabr...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>> >>>> AFAIK Mark Struberg's work on the OWB proxies could be instructive, and >>>>> since I've just spent several weeks in ASM hell I might just be a bit >>>>> of >>>>> use there myself. The only thing is, isn't cglib built on ASM as well? >>>>> The >>>>> dynamic nature of the various proxy helpers means that we probably >>>>> couldn't >>>>> really improve on cglib, i.e. only if we could test invocation >>>>> matching up >>>>> front while creating the proxy class would we be faster. >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> On Jul 27, 2013 12:22 PM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Hehe, we benched in owb but lets wait the porting ;) >>>>> > Le 27 juil. 2013 16:49, "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> >>>>> a >>>>> > écrit : >>>>> > >>>>> > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>> > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > > > Once ill have done the monitoring stuff ill try to work on it. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > What would be really cool is to have a "smackdown" once we get ASM >>>>> > > into the mix to see which one performs the best and exactly how >>>>> fast >>>>> > > they are compared to one another. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>> >
