Re: Re: Online mode architecture

Alex wrote:

> We don't plan yet to have bytecode kit independance for AspectWerkz as a
> whole so we won't add asm.jar to the project for now.

So this means I should keep AsmClassLoaderPreProcessorImpl in my own tree?
FWIW the extra class files would add 5 or 6K to aspectwerkz-core.jar.

> I would rather have this kind of things as separate jars.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

> Having asm.jar in the project will be the way to go if all the AspectWerkz
> transformer stack (currently implemented with BCEL) would be ported to ASM
> (or other bytecode kit as well). But unless someone wish to hack it, it
> won't be in the todo list until some stage.

I don't think having multiple bytecode implementations will be useful for
the project as a whole, it would be too hard to keep things in sync
(perhaps for just the hook it is ok). But I think you may want to think
about switching from BCEL to ASM entirely, for size and speed reasons. For
example, my ASM preprocessor is noticeably faster at startup.

> Tips: notice that there is a specific snip to support IBM WSDK in the
> BCEL..Impl. Could be good to have it as well in ASM implementation
> (defineClass0 has extra args compared to standard SUN JDK).

I've copied the IBM logic, thanks.

Chris