Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Release of ASM4

On 08/05/2011 05:41 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
> I guess I've not tried to move my code to ASM4 yet, but I would have 
> assumed that if I'm doing limited transformations whereby I pass most 
> constants, etc, through, that my visitor/adapter wouldn't have to 
> change at all.
>
> [I'm essentially just doing "around" advice like AspectJ, but without 
> the overhead, etc, of AspectJ.]

BTW, you could implement "around" advice without generating any bytecode
using invokedynamic and MethodHandles.foldArguments().

see 
http://code.google.com/p/jsr292-cookbook/source/browse/trunk/interceptors/src/jsr292/cookbook/interceptors/Interceptors.java

Rémi

>
> On 8/5/2011 10:12 AM, Eugene Kuleshov wrote:
>> Jess,
>>
>>    You will have to use ASM4 in order to process Java7 bytecode, even
>> if you are not using Java7 features, new bytecode can have new
>> constant types not supported by ASM3.
>>
>>    regards,
>>    Eugene
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Jess Holle<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>> I use ASM 3 with a non-mangled package name -- and use various other
>>> packages which use it with a mangled package name.
>>>
>>> I can do a global replace and recompile easily enough, of course -- 
>>> it's not
>>> like I'm going to straddle ASM 3 and ASM 4 (i.e. trying to support 
>>> either as
>>> a drop-in).
>>>
>>> That said, since ASM 4 is required for proper Java 7 support, it 
>>> seems like
>>> repackaging now forces an update for anyone not mangling purely to 
>>> get to
>>> Java 7 support.  I'm not sure that's entirely a good thing -- but I 
>>> won't
>>> throw a fit about it either.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Jess Holle
>>>
>>> On 8/4/2011 10:17 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>>>> Tapestry uses ASM 3 with a mangled package name as well.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
>>>> <[email protected]>    wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Rémi Forax<[email protected]>    
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Eugene,
>>>>>> I know that you really want to change the package name
>>>>>> but talking with several users at the JVM Summit last week,
>>>>>> the idea is not popular.
>>>>>> Most of them either manage their dependencies to have only
>>>>>> jars that use one version of ASM (maven to the rescue)
>>>>>> or they use jarjar.
>>>>> Count JRuby among the projects that ships ASM under a mangled package
>>>>> name. I don't care what the package is, really.
>>>>>
>>>>> BiteScript, on the other hand, does have dependencies on ASM's actual
>>>>> package name and our mangled name. BiteScript is still used as the
>>>>> compiler backend of a few projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Charlie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] 
>>>>> mailing list.
>>>>> To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]
>>>>> For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help
>>>>> OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing 
>>> list.
>>> To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]
>>> For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help
>>> OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws
>>>
>>>
>

-- 
You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]
For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help
OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws