That's my point; it doesn't.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:49 AM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote: > Does the ASM API require a java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler? > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well for the maintainance it is easier (and not really slower) to use a > > little abstraction. InvocationHandler/Inoker is fine. Since JdkProxy uses > > the exact same code i throught it could be shared. > > > > *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* > > > > > > > > 2013/8/1 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> > > > >> The behavior of proxies is specified by Invokers, ObjectProviders, and > >> Interceptors. Each ProxyFactory implementation bridges from these > >> interfaces to the most appropriate mechanism specific to the target > >> technology. In the case of ASM, I would think that would be direct calls > >> against the proxy interface implementations themselves. > >> > >> Matt > >> On Aug 1, 2013 9:21 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> a sed shold almost work but the issue is the same: the code is > >>> duplicated, no? is there invoker elsewhere? > >>> > >>> *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* > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2013/8/1 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>>> But is there some technical reason why it's helpful for ASM proxies to > >>>> use > >>>> InvocationHandler specifically? Why wouldn't they just use Invoker > >>>> directly? > >>>> > >>>> Matt > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > +1 > >>>> > > >>>> > jdkproxyfactory can even be hardcoded as a default IMO (without > using > >>>> the > >>>> > SPI) > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > *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* > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > 2013/8/1 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > >>>> > > >>>> > > You mean all the InvocationHandler classes in JdkProxy? I guess > we > >>>> > > could break those out into top-level classes, but then you'd have > >>>> > > multiple implementations on your classpath if you made a > dependency > >>>> on > >>>> > > commons-proxy-jdk. We could move those to "core" I guess. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >>>> > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > > > Ok for all excepted last point (i was not clear i think). The > >>>> > > ProxyFactory > >>>> > > > impl using jdk proxy uses Invocationhandler like the asm > >>>> implementation > >>>> > > so > >>>> > > > it would be great to be able to share the handler classes > between > >>>> both > >>>> > > impl. > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > *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* > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > 2013/8/1 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >>>> > > >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > > >> > ok, > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > here it is: https://gist.github.com/rmannibucau/6128964 > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> Thanks! > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > 1) i didn't fully get the goal of stub module, any pointers? > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> It provides features very similar to the mocking support in > >>>> libraries > >>>> > > >> like Mockito/EasyMock. Basically, you can "train" a proxy to > do > >>>> what > >>>> > > >> you want in certain situations. > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > 2) in ProxyFactory methods have this kind of signature > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > <T> T createDelegatorProxy( ClassLoader classLoader, > >>>> > ObjectProvider<?> > >>>> > > >> > delegateProvider, > >>>> > > >> > Class<?>... > >>>> proxyClasses ); > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > why <T>if ObjectProvider is not ObjectProvider<T> (same for > >>>> Object > >>>> > for > >>>> > > >> > others method). basically T isn't matched. > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> I'll have to take a look. I believe the <T> is there for > >>>> "syntactic > >>>> > > >> sugar", since you can pass in any classes you want really. > >>>> Hopefully > >>>> > > >> the user won't do something stupid and they'll actually pass > >>>> Class<T> > >>>> > > >> as one of the proxyClasses when they're asking for a return > type > >>>> of > >>>> > > >> <T> back. Since you can have multiple proxy classes, the > >>>> > > >> ObjectProvider can't really match any one particular one (it > >>>> needs to > >>>> > > >> support all). > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > 3) the jdk implementation uses InvocationHandler for the > >>>> proxying, > >>>> > asm > >>>> > > >> > implementation has almost the same (i didn't check but i > started > >>>> > from > >>>> > > an > >>>> > > >> > exact copy), it would be great to get them in a common > module to > >>>> > > avoid to > >>>> > > >> > duplicate it > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> We have our own interface for InvocationHander, it's called > >>>> Invoker. > >>>> > > >> Other libraries can be "adapted" to ours if you want to reuse > >>>> > > >> something. > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >>>> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >>>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
