commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <>
Subject [classscan] Metadata API discussion
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:37:50 GMT

I now did read through the metadata classes of Chas' and Davids impls.

Both look pretty similar to some degree. A few key differences

* using AnnotatedElement instead of HasName() makes it possible to replace most 'old' code
which does getAnnotations() etc 1:1
 Imo we should keep this feature.

* to interface or not to interface, that's the question. 

 The actual meta information should be as small as possible. There are tons of it. 

 1. Currently in Chas' impl there are bcel specific parts in it. Can those probably be extracted?
I think so, or do you see any problems? If we cannot split then we should keep the interfaces.
But remember that this takes (a bit) more space in mem.
 2. If Interfaces, then impls could point to bcel/asm internal strutures for storing the
data. This would reduce space. But only if bcel/asm would keep this info anyway. Otherswise
it might be better to throw the bcel/asm stuff away after repackaging to a small meta info

(just to not loose some questions... more to come...)


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message