Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 9736 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2008 13:27:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Mar 2008 13:27:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 80999 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2008 13:27:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 80900 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2008 13:27:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 80891 invoked by uid 99); 8 Mar 2008 13:27:40 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 05:27:40 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [208.75.86.161] (HELO vafer.org) (208.75.86.161) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:27:03 +0000 Received: from dslb-084-058-020-192.pools.arcor-ip.net ([84.58.20.192]:33182 helo=[10.0.1.4]) by vafer.org with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JXz4x-0002Wd-KS for dev@commons.apache.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:27:11 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <50F2B7F9-AA11-4866-85C4-3BA93E8566F7@apache.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Torsten Curdt Subject: Re: [proxy] sfl4j-like discovery for ProxyFactory... Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 14:28:23 +0100 To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 08.03.2008, at 13:44, James Carman wrote: > All, > > The wicket folks are investigating using Commons Proxy and they don't > want to have to decide which implementation (jdk, cglib, javassist) to > use themselves. They would like us to split up Commons Proxy into 3 > jars, commons-proxy, commons-proxy-cglib, commons-proxy-javassist. > Any thoughts? Is the discovery such a big problem with proxy? ...in general I prefer the static discovery type. But someone has to do it. My 2 cents cheers -- Torsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org