On 02/18/2015 11:26 AM, Debasish Ray Chawdhuri wrote:
So that it does not mess up with the different version of the library
that the user is trying to use.
It depends what you mean by mess up,
if you mean that your IDE is currently (jdk8) able to see different
versions of ASM, this is fixed in 9
(because you can specify that a module doesn't re-export packages)
if you mean that your have different versions of ASM in the classpath
that collide at runtime, this is also fixed in 9
(because you can specify that your code depend on a module version),
that said you will still have several versions at runtime but no collision.
Rémi
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Ben Evans
<benjamin.john.ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
OK - I'm going to bite.
Why are we doing this? If we're shipping a general purpose bytecode
manipulation library, then why is it private?
Surely this should become an official, supported & public API?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
On 02/17/2015 08:30 PM, Mark Roos wrote:
I see that jdk8 now includes a copy of ASM (jdk.internal.org.objectweb.asm).
Is it recommended to use that instance vs suppling a copy with my
application?
thanks
mark
Hi Mark,
These classes are not the one you are looking for :)
As the 'internal' in the package name suggest, these classes are intended to
be used by the JDK classes only, and not by anyone else.
BTW, these classes are not visible anymore in jdk9 (even by reflection).
regards,
Rémi
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
