On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 16:38, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > Thanks Scott. > > I think the proxy code needs a good rewrite. It seems to use a lot > complicated code and array tricks because the writer decided not to use > the collections APIs. > > If we can simplify this code, I think we should change our usage of > java.util.Proxy over to our generator, as ours is easier in debugging > because it names classes my.ParentClass$Proxy instead of $Proxy.
The problem was (is?) that BCEL uses arrays rather than collections in it's API to generate the byte code so you end up doing lots of Collection -> array -> Collection manipulation. At the time there was no easy way to map java.lang.ref.Method et al to the BCEL representations, so there's a bit of crap to get around that stuff too. Also BCELifier (which takes a .class file and produces a BCEL implementation of a class that produces the same .class) wasn't available either However...BCEL has matured quite a lot since the first port I did back in Feb. so the code definitely needs a review against improvements in the BCEL APIs. I'll have a look today (dunno if my R/W is still active tho') Neale > > -dain > > Hiram Chirino wrote: > > I'll look into it right away. > > Regards, > > Hiram > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
