Re: [fortress / excalibur] JDK 1.2 dynamic proxies: implementation question, to CGLIB or...

Peter Donald wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:11, Neeme Praks wrote:
>
> >When implementing dynamic proxies for JDK 1.2, we have two choices:
> >1. I have cooked up an implementation for generating dynamic proxy
> >classes with BCEL, but it still needs some more work to make it ready
> >for production use.
>
> I would prefer this because I assume it is small and lightweight and 
> does not
> have any overhead but poking through CGLIB looks like it does.
>
> However it is up to you. If you don't want to support the code or 
> can't get it
> into BCEL or whatever then CGILIB may be an option. However if we go that
> path I would prefer that CGILIB only got used under jdk1.2 and native 
> proxys got used in jdk1.3+

Well, we can do some performance testing later...
Chris (one of the CGLIB developers) wrote to me this:
 > Hi again Neeme,
 >
 > Saw your message to avalon-dev (I read the archives of a lot of apache
 > lists :-). Any help with documentation and testing of CGLIB would be
 > appreciated, if you decide to use it.
 >
 > Also, I'm not sure what led to Peter's concerns, but the library
 > actually goes to quite some trouble to make the creation and execution
 > of the generated code as fast as possible, through proper caching,
 > etc. The jar itself is only 60k not including BCEL.

So, I would prefer using CGLIB and improve that if there are places for 
improvement. Anyway, CGLIB seems to have at least a "community" around 
it, developing and maintaining it. All code in BCEL seems to be pretty 
much frozen...

> >Was it really part of Jakarta Commons?
> I think so (at least it has the same authors).
> >Why did it leave?
> good question.

Nobody knows? I couldn't find anything in the commons-dev list archives 
either... Chris, can you fill in here?

> BCEL doesn't have a community and never has (even pre-Apache days). It 
> came to
> Apache ready made and of high enough quality that no one really needs 
> to change it much. Theres a lot of users but thats about it.

Well, if there are some other projects (like CGLIB) that could be in the 
BCEL scope, then I think that the code should have been moved to BCEL 
instead... But probably it was thought to be out-of-scope for BCEL...

Rgds,
Neeme