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

What will choke?  ASM4 even though I don't have any logic hinging on the 
new opcodes, etc?

Or ASM 3 will choke?  I'd assume that -- but I'd also assume that I 
shouldn't have to change anything in a simple adapter extension if I 
don't have logic that hinges on any of the new opcodes, etc.

On 8/5/2011 10:57 AM, Eugene Kuleshov wrote:
> Jess,
>
>    It will work if processed bytecode don't have any new Java7
> features, but ti will choke if it hit any new opcodes or constant
> stack entries.
>
>    regards,
>    Eugene
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Jess Holle<[email protected]>  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.]
>>
>> 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