att Benson
> To: Commons Developers List
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 4:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [weaver]/[bcel] WAS [privilizer] promotion plan
>
> A [weaver] component as I envisioning it would provide e.g. a
> BytecodeWeaver interface, a custom implementation of wh
A [weaver] component as I envisioning it would provide e.g. a
BytecodeWeaver interface, a custom implementation of which could be
specified via:
- the Maven plugin
- the Antlib
- the Java API
Thus IMO it would be quite natural for [nabla] to make use of [weaver].
>From Torsten's/Mark's/Stephen's
Hi all,
Le 04/12/2012 23:54, Matt Benson a écrit :
> Well, it looks like the most comfortable avenue for everyone is Commons
> [weaver]. IMO [weaver] would look like a framework for implementing any
> kind of code weaving, so the most important decision is the look of the
> API, and it would seem
On 4 December 2012 23:05, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I like the name weaver.
>
> Does it make sense to allow different libs to be plugged in? BCEL,
> ASM... Or do do we have to pick one?
Based on what I see in various projects, ASM won, BCEL lost. Main
problem tends to be different versions of ASM bei
Le 04/12/2012 23:54, Matt Benson a écrit :
> Well, it looks like the most comfortable avenue for everyone is Commons
> [weaver]. IMO [weaver] would look like a framework for implementing any
> kind of code weaving, so the most important decision is the look of the
> API, and it would seem that eat
On 04/12/2012 22:54, Matt Benson wrote:
> Well, it looks like the most comfortable avenue for everyone is Commons
> [weaver]. IMO [weaver] would look like a framework for implementing any
> kind of code weaving, so the most important decision is the look of the
> API, and it would seem that eating
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Sadly I do not see much BCEL activity in Commons...
>
> Does ASM fully support Java 7?
>
For a while now
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/forax/archive/2011/04/17/asm-4-rc1-released
An implementation-neutral API does not sound like a such great
I'm not opposed to multiple backends, but this dictates that [weaver] must
have its own implementation-neutral API. I don't know that I'm prepared to
create it.
Matt
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I like the name weaver.
>
> Does it make sense to allow different libs to
Sadly I do not see much BCEL activity in Commons...
Does ASM fully support Java 7?
Gary
On Dec 4, 2012, at 18:01, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> I would suggest to go with ASM instead ...unless there are people that are
> eager to work on BCEL.
>
> cheers,
> Torsten
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:54
I like the name weaver.
Does it make sense to allow different libs to be plugged in? BCEL,
ASM... Or do do we have to pick one?
Gary
On Dec 4, 2012, at 17:55, Matt Benson wrote:
> Well, it looks like the most comfortable avenue for everyone is Commons
> [weaver]. IMO [weaver] would look like
I would suggest to go with ASM instead ...unless there are people that are
eager to work on BCEL.
cheers,
Torsten
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> Well, it looks like the most comfortable avenue for everyone is Commons
> [weaver]. IMO [weaver] would look like a framework
Well, it looks like the most comfortable avenue for everyone is Commons
[weaver]. IMO [weaver] would look like a framework for implementing any
kind of code weaving, so the most important decision is the look of the
API, and it would seem that eating our own dog food would be appropriate in
Common
Le 29/11/2012 19:12, Matt Benson a écrit :
> This would go back to the idea of something like a BCEL library
> (notwithstanding the fact that the existing privilizer code does not use
> BCEL).
For such a component BCEL would be an implementation detail, so I don't
think it should be a sub part of
Hi Emmanuel, and thanks for your elaboration. It seems Lombok primarily
(exclusively?) takes the approach of altering the AST of a given Java file,
and it appears they may now support both Oracle and Eclipse compilers. I
still don't know that I quite consider their approach to be a
Commons-friend
Le 29/11/2012 16:41, Matt Benson a écrit :
> Interesting; I apparently hadn't looked at Lombok apparently since they've
> added the @DoPrivileged annotation (pretty sure it wasn't always there).
You probably looked in the core of Lombok, @DoPrivileged is in the
companion project lombok-pg.
> My
Interesting; I apparently hadn't looked at Lombok apparently since they've
added the @DoPrivileged annotation (pretty sure it wasn't always there).
My problem with Lombok is that, as I understand it, they have to resort to
"tricks" due to the limitations of the public annotation processing APIs,
th
Lombok features feels like they could belong in [lang].
Gary
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> This components reminds me of Project Lombok [1]. As I understand the
> approach is different, Lombok uses JavaC annotations to generate the
> additional code at compile time,
This components reminds me of Project Lombok [1]. As I understand the
approach is different, Lombok uses JavaC annotations to generate the
additional code at compile time, while Privilizer post process the class
files with Javassist and works at the bytecode level.
Lombok has a @DoPrivileged annot
On 11/28/12 12:44 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> Hi all,
> As long as I've been part of the Commons community I don't know that I've
> encountered this exact situation: a committer adds some code to the
> sandbox that is more or less complete. I don't know precisely what
> requirements must be met be
gt;
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: Matt Benson
> > To: Gary Gregory
> > Cc: Commons Developers List
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: [privilizer] promotion plan
> >
> > Hi Gary,
> > Feel free to
. Otherwise it's a new module imo.
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Matt Benson
> To: Gary Gregory
> Cc: Commons Developers List
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [privilizer] promotion plan
>
> Hi Gary,
> Feel free to
Pretty sure you didn't intend to drop the list; adding back. ;) Using
BCEL to do the dirty work could be an option, though I confess I wouldn't
mind seeing that done for a v1.1. The
codebase-formerly-known-as-privileged-method-weaver feels as much to me
like part of the current BCEL as a plumber
Hi Gary,
Feel free to suggest one or more alternate names, and we can vote on
them! The intent is to quickly convey that the component "equips your code
to run in a Java security constrained environment," thus "privilizer" or
"that which makes your code privileged." Since the main use of the
co
Another aspect to consider is would this new "privalizer" component (not
crazy about the name ATM) fit in an existing Commons component?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> Hi all,
> As long as I've been part of the Commons community I don't know that I've
> encountered this
Hi all,
As long as I've been part of the Commons community I don't know that I've
encountered this exact situation: a committer adds some code to the
sandbox that is more or less complete. I don't know precisely what
requirements must be met before we promote [privilizer] to proper. We seem
to
25 matches
Mail list logo
