On 3/9/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 09:58 +0100, Werner Punz wrote: > > Mario Ivankovits schrieb: > > > Hi! > > > > > > Its again me ... somewhat angry, so sorry *grrrr* I CANT SET A > > > BREAKPOINT IN SHARED ANY MORE - or I have to do it twice in shared_impl > > > and shared_tomahawk. > > > Please lets discuss again why this refactoring is needed - PLEASE !!! > > > > > >> Now I propose to get rid of all those class.getName() (or > > >> this.getClass().getName where required) and replace them by a string > > >> literal (representing the FQN of the class without any refactoring) > > >> > > > We cant use the FQN as then the refactoring happen on this string > > > literal anyway. > > > So I change my proposal to use org.apache.myfaces.XXXXXX > > > > > > WDYT? > > > Mario > > > > > > > > +1 for a new discussion, this refactoring is outright problematic, > > what we have here is a precompiler situation which basically kills > > several important low level tools right off. > > I'm still very much in favour of *not* shipping a common jar used by > both core and tomahawk (and maybe tobago, ADF, etc); the versioning > issues related to that are nasty. > > What I had in mind when this was being discussed was not a compilation > pre-processor but instead a tool based on ASM that would post-process a > jarfile to rename all classes from package X to package Y, and change > all references to stuff in package X to the new package Y. Whether this > approach would actually be better or worse with respect to breakpoints > and similar issues I'm not sure. > > One difference of this approach is that the source code would refer to > org.apache.myfaces.shared.X, not to org.apache.myfaces.shared_zzz.X > which might help. The post-processed binary *would* refer to > shared_zzz.X though which might confuse interactive debuggers worse than > source-level preprocessing.
Yes, exactly. And that is the reason why I think that the current approach is much cleaner. No tricks, no tweaking. Impl and Tomahawk both use *real* JARs with *real* sources. So neither IDEs nor debuggers should have a problem. > Personally I don't use breakpoints much; logging works better for me for > debugging. Maybe you are kind of biased? :-) Manfred
