Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of timothyjward@hotmail.com
 designates 65.55.116.80 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <BLU128-W1724C6929C237264BBB06DF600@phx.gbl>
From: Timothy Ward <timothyjward@apache.org>
Sender: <timothyjward@hotmail.com>
To: <dev@aries.apache.org>
CC: <dev@openwebbeans.apache.org>, <dev@geronimo.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Yet another proxy/weaving problem
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 12:36:21 +0100
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <03A4D5C4-F3E2-42D7-8498-9FF4FD57ECD0@yahoo.com>
References: 
 <ABB85DD1-E375-498F-B8B7-8730662332C7@yahoo.com>,<03A4D5C4-F3E2-42D7-8498-9FF4FD57ECD0@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


Sorry=2C

Aparently I responded on the wrong fork of this message list


>From June 2nd=20

----------------------


I would like to quickly point out that the method java.lang.reflect.Method#=
isSynthetic() gives you access to the synthetic flag in a very easy way.=20
=20
My understanding from JIT implementors has always been that final is a good=
 thing for performance. I also like the additional safety it adds to the pr=
oxy code=2C preventing us accidentally overriding our own implementations.
=20
I do think overriding synthetic methods when proxying is a reasonably bad i=
dea=2C similarly for bridge methods=2C which I imagine are also overridden.=
 Intercepting these calls gives the wrong behaviour unless you are extremel=
y careful. Obviously I'm not part of the OWB discussion=2C and they may be =
making valid points. For clarity we avoid weaving/overriding synthetic=2C s=
tatic=2C private=2C bridge=2C abstract or native modified methods in Aries =
code.
=20
I assume removing the final modifier from the proxy weaving code also fixes=
 the issue?
=20
Regards=2C
=20
Tim
----------------


Tim


----------------------------------------
> Subject: Re: Yet another proxy/weaving problem
> From: david_jencks@yahoo.com
> Date: Sat=2C 4 Jun 2011 09:02:57 -0700
> CC: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org=3B dev@geronimo.apache.org
> To: dev@aries.apache.org
>
> I've now found another place where the added WovenProxy interface breaks =
OpenWebBeans. The lack of response on the aries list to my first post makes=
 me think that perhaps this interface can't be removed. I notice that there=
's an isSynthetic() method on Class. I'm not sure what this means but I'm w=
ondering if it would be possible to mark this interface synthetic and have =
the relevant parts of OWB ignore synthetic interfaces rather than explicitl=
y configuring it to ignore this particular interface?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jun 2=2C 2011=2C at 11:53 PM=2C David Jencks wrote:
>
> > another day another problem....
> >
> > org.apache.webbeans.exception.WebBeansConfigurationException: Decorator=
 : Name:null=2C WebBeans Type:DECORATOR=2C API Types:[org.jboss.jsr299.tck.=
tests.context.dependent.InteriorDecorator=2Corg.apache.aries.proxy.weaving.=
WovenProxy=2Corg.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.context.dependent.Interior=2Cjava.l=
ang.Object]=2C Qualifiers:[javax.enterprise.inject.Any=2Cjavax.enterprise.i=
nject.Default] delegate attribute must implement all of the decorator decor=
ated types=2C but decorator type interface org.apache.aries.proxy.weaving.W=
ovenProxy is not assignable from delegate type of interface org.jboss.jsr29=
9.tck.tests.context.dependent.Interior
> >
> >
> > I believe the story here is that decorator classes must not implement i=
nterfaces that the delegate doesn't implement=2C but aries is adding the or=
g.apache.aries.proxy.weaving.WovenProxy to the decorator class.
> >
> > OWB is already excluding Serializable and I can modify the code to also=
 exclude org.apache.aries.proxy.weaving.WovenProxy and the jcdi tests pass =
but this is going to involve making the list of ignored interfaces configur=
able and may not be acceptable to OWB.
> >
> > Is there any way to make the weaving/proxying code not add this interfa=
ce? I don't think the jdk proxying code needs to add interfaces....
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
>
 		 	   		  =