[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-9736?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17511031#comment-17511031
]
Christopher Smith commented on GROOVY-9736:
-------------------------------------------
I have a couple of AST transformations that add class members, and I need to
specify the modifiers. Looking back at it, though, I wonder whether
{{java.lang.reflect.Modifier}} might be suitable.
> Remove org.objectweb.asm.Opcodes as implemented interface in most (all?)
> places
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GROOVY-9736
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-9736
> Project: Groovy
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 3.0.5
> Reporter: Paul King
> Assignee: Paul King
> Priority: Major
> Labels: breaking
> Fix For: 4.0.0-alpha-1
>
> Time Spent: 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Back before Java had static imports, a common usage pattern for using
> `org.objectweb.asm.Opcodes` was just to implement that interface. Then,
> referencing the constants within that interface was simply a matter of
> referencing them directly rather than requiring them to be prefixed with the
> class name. Since static imports, it is generally better to statically import
> the required constants. This avoids that class from leaking into our public
> API. It is even slightly more problematic than normal for us since that class
> is one of the ones we jarjar, so the leaked class might have a different
> package (groovyjarjarasm) than the one some might expect.
> This issue is to consider removing all such usage (targeting Groovy 4). Code
> which extends any impacted classes might now need to add additional static
> imports. One the plus side, the jarjar side of things will then remain better
> hidden.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
