+1 indeed - Romain
2012/8/9 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > +1 > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2012/8/9 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > > +1 for ASM, we only use direct byte code manipulation anyway. > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Charles Moulliard <ch0...@gmail.com> > > > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > > > Cc: > > > Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 8:36 AM > > > Subject: Re: javassist removal > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > Is it for performance reasons that you prefer to switch from Javassist > to > > > ASM (http://swapnil84.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/asm-vs-javassist/) ? > What > > > could be the impact for existing projects (or side effect) when they > will > > > upgrade to a "refactored" version of OpenWebbeans using ASM and not > > > longer > > > javassist ? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Charles > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:27 AM, David Blevins > > > <david.blev...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > >> Hey All, > > >> > > >> Heads up that I'd like to investigate removing javassist and > replacing > > > it > > >> with some simple ASM code to create subclass based proxies. The > proxy > > code > > >> is the small part, the bigger part is refactoring out the > MethodHandler > > >> classes and replacing them with java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler > > >> implementations. > > >> > > >> As usual I'll probably look for an intermediary step in refactoring > it > > >> out, maybe some way to keep the MethodHandlers and get all the code > > working > > >> with a different proxy impl, then refactor the handlers. > > >> > > >> Any thoughts or comments welcome. > > >> > > >> > > >> -David > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Charles Moulliard > > > Apache Committer / Sr. Pr. Consultant at FuseSource.com > > > Twitter : @cmoulliard > > > Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com > > > > > >
