Re: [asm] Re: [Springframework-developer] ASM commons

[Alexandre V. <ava...@gm...>]

well as I said, the AW Proxy is fairly useless alone, and our need in
AW is not in the proxy, but actually
- a method hook to post process the bytecode of the proxy
- a kind of mechanism to map a proxy class name to the class name its
proxies, so that a matching engine can handle the match for f.e.
execution(* Target.doSome(..)) in a transparent way when it gets the
proxy class information of Target (be it implements based or extends
based).
- that proxy classes have the same annotations of the class it proxies
(this is the case in AWProxy, don't know for f.e. Cglib)

This indeed fit well in a ASM common, though a bit too small to
deserve a dedicated name  ? [aside it is not that tied to ASM]

As regards which AOP things will be possible to bind to the proxy, I
consider it out of the scope since
- we already have many proxy based AOP, unless the goal is to impl the
RI of AOP Alliance on top of proxies in a joint effort [ is that the
goal ?]
- we already have support for AOP alliance aspects on top of AWProxy
or hooked in CGLib proxy, and this with the AW statically compiled
performance [for sure, still needs to create the object arrays args,
wrap / cast everything etc]

So what should be the exact scope and user value of ASM common ?

Alex
[PS: replying to all lists but don't know if I am subsribed to all so
please accept my post if you have to moderate it and let me know so
that I subscribe to the missing list(s)]




On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:44:23 +0000, Rob Harrop <ro...@ca...> wrote:
> Eugene,
> 
> I like the idea and I am more than willing to help. It would be great to
> provide a common framework for this kind of thing along with commons
> support for the AOP Alliance interfaces which will allow for the
> construction of really high performance AOP proxies.
> 
> Rob
> 
> Eugene Kuleshov wrote:
> 
> > Folks,
> >
> >   Sorry for the cross posting, but I'd like to make a formal proposal
> > for coordinated efford to generalize some of the common bytecode
> > transformations with ASM.
> >
> >   It has been identified that Spring, AspectWerkz, CGLIB and DynAop
> > (indirectly trough CGLIB) projects have needs for "class proxy"
> > bytecode transformation. So, it seems makes sense to implement
> > something common and generic enoigh to be used across all projects.
> >
> >   Thank you.
> >
> >   Eugene
> >
> >
> > BRUNETON Eric RD-MAPS-GRE wrote:
> >
> > [skipped]
> >
> >> ... This could be an opportunity to start a new asm.adapters package
> >> containing commonly used adapters (the starting point could be a review
> >> of existing ASM adapters in CGLIB, AspectWerkz, ... to see if some
> >> abstract or even concrete transformers can be shared - after a
> >> generalization step, to make them customizable and reusable). This could
> >> be a common effort of the ASM community.
> >>
> >> Eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> > http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Springframework-developer mailing list
> > Spr...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> You receive this message as a subscriber of the as...@ob... mailing list.
> To unsubscribe: mailto:asm...@ob...
> For general help: mailto:sy...@ob...?subject=help
> ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
> 
> 
>