Re: [Springframework-developer] Proxying Classes without a Default Constructor

[Rob H. <ro...@ca...>]

Actually, I agree with this, I just want to get this issue fixed or 
closed - I feel guilty every time I look at JIRA :). The upgrade to 
2.1dev was to fix the problem related to side effects of calling 
constructors that initialized state for a 2nd time during proxy 
creation. The creation of a proxy with CGLIB will no longer reset any 
bean state if the constructor has calls to initialize the state.

Juergen Hoeller wrote:

>Rob, everybody,
>
>Some thoughts on the level of our CGLIB support. I have hinted at this
>before; I guess it is the time to seriously discuss desirable and
>undesirable features now.
>
>I'm inclined to argue that we shouldn't support proxying of classes without
>default constructor in the first place. It feels so wrong to have to specify
>constructor args on a ProxyFactoryBean... and to actually execute the full
>constructor of the target class just for the proxy instance, with those
>problems of suppressing method calls in the constructor (to avoid side
>effects) etc.
>
>For my taste, this goes too far. CGLIB proxies are already debatable with
>default constructors that perform initialization work, and simply feel like
>a big hack when used with a non-default constructor. IMO, the proxy-based
>AOP approach is not recommendable for such needs: Go for full-blown AspectJ
>or add the additional behavior in a more traditional way (wrapping,
>subclassing, whatever).
>
>I'd like to hear opinions on the value of proxying classes with non-default
>constructors. I currently prefer to avoid that feature in the first place,
>but I'm open to getting convinced otherwise.
>
>Juergen
>
>
>P.S.: I suppose that the CGLIB upgrade to 2.1-dev was necessary for this?
>Does this mean that we could stick with CGLIB 2.0.2 (for Spring 1.1.5) if we
>avoid supporting non-default constructors for proxies?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: spr...@li...
>[mailto:spr...@li...]On Behalf
>Of Rob Harrop
>Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 9:31 PM
>To: spr...@li...
>Subject: [Springframework-developer] Proxying Classes without a Default
>Constructor
>
>
>All,
>
>I'm going to raise this issue again in the hope that we can reach a
>consensus before 1.1.5. I have modified Cglib2AopProxy to support
>classes without a default constructor, we just need to make this
>functionality available in a configurable manner. Ideally this would be
>done with setConstructorArgs(Object[]) and
>setConstructorArgTypes(Class[]) methods on ProxyFactoryBean.
>
>Rob
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
>Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
>by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
>Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
>_______________________________________________
>Springframework-developer mailing list
>Spr...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
>Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
>by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
>Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
>_______________________________________________
>Springframework-developer mailing list
>Spr...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer
>
>
>  
>