Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 48947 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2002 09:30:44 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Dec 2002 09:30:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 24872 invoked by uid 97); 16 Dec 2002 09:32:01 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 24803 invoked by uid 97); 16 Dec 2002 09:31:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 24788 invoked by uid 98); 16 Dec 2002 09:31:58 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <3DFD9D33.9030100@apache.org> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:30:27 +0200 From: Neeme Praks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; et-EE; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016 X-Accept-Language: et MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon Developers List Cc: Chris Nokleberg Subject: Re: [fortress / excalibur] JDK 1.2 dynamic proxies: implementation question, to CGLIB or... References: <3DF6F323.7080207@apache.org> <200212121006.13155.peter@realityforge.org> In-Reply-To: <3DF6F323.7080207@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.hot.ee X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: