We should analyse if ASM7 is a drop-in replacement and can be used in a backward compatible way. If so, then we could keep the shaded o.a.g.asm6 package and just document it. If ASM7 removed some old methods, then we really should also shade to a private asm7 package.
LieGrue, strub > Am 30.09.2018 um 19:44 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > Hi guys, > > Asm 7 beta was released yesterday, I'd like to try to release it ASAP. > I see 1 main point to discuss before releasing: do we keep the version in the > package and module name? For now it is required cause we cant guarantee > anything about asm compatibility. > > Options I see are: > 1. drop asm and use bcel (which is asf) > 2. drop asm and reimplement bytecode parsing for our need (but will create > issue in most of our stack for proxy creation IMHO) > 3. keep it like that > 4. use an "asm.*" package crossing fingers > > I'd love 4 but I fear it can create issue quickly when I see what java is > becoming so, personally, i think 3 is safe but since we are at "that" moment > I'd like to get your feedback. > > Side note: if I get no other vote than 3 before tuesday, i'll try to launch > the release on tuesday with asm7 module and package to let us get it out. > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
