geronimo-xbean-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: HEADS-UP: ASM 3.1 shaded and org.objectweb.asm becomes org.apache.xbean.asm
Date Tue, 26 May 2009 18:40:33 GMT

On May 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On May 22, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Jacek Laskowski
>> <jacek@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> One (small) step at a time? :) I'll give it a shot ->
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XBEAN-129
>>
>> Done. It turned out very easy. Thanks for encouragement :)
>
>
> I'm not very happy with the current way this is implemented.  I  
> guess my fundamental point of view is that shading is only needed  
> when you don't have good classloaders such as osgi or (some version  
> of) the geronimo ones.  I don't think the core xbean libraries  
> should make such assumptions about classloaders but should assume  
> good classloading.
>
> So I'd prefer that the core xbean libraries use plan asm and that we  
> provide shaded xbean libraries that use the shaded asm jar.  If no  
> one objects I'm happy to set this up.

Ok, the end result will be the same for any G assemblies that pull in  
OpenEJB.  I.e. OpenEJB needs to satisfy the embedded scenario where  
there are just plain classloaders, so the end result is that xbean- 
finder + xbean-reflect + xbean-asm-shaded are still going to be  
required as they are now (or some equivalent form of them).

-David


Mime
View raw message