Nice... this would probably be enough, dependency-wise, IMO, until someone actually has a need for something else.
Matt On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi > > here is the asm4-shaded impl: https://gist.github.com/rmannibucau/6125125 > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > > > 2013/7/29 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> hmm not sure i follow, here we don't shade asm (it is already done) and >> if all libs shade it we will have at least 5 shade of the same version in >> tomee for instance (same comment on the app side) so that's not a solution >> for each lib. [proxy] is small enough to not shade IMO. That said if your >> relocation trick works it would be enough to copy classes with relocation >> in 3-4 places. >> >> *Romain Manni-Bucau* >> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* >> *Blog: >> **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> >> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* >> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* >> >> >> >> 2013/7/29 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> >> >>> Rather than duplicating code I thought we could code to asm4's released >>> jars, and provide the basic proxy-asm artifact. Then shade asm4 and >>> provide proxy-asm-shaded. Then optionally, we could create another shaded >>> jar that relocates to the same destination as xbean-shaded-asm4 but does >>> not actually shade the classes. I think maven-shade-plugin would do this >>> by specifying relocations without the artifactSet, though I haven't tried >>> it. Then we support: >>> >>> * asm4 is on classpath >>> * one well-known shading that the user may already have on the classpath >>> * dependencies shaded to a namespace specific to proxy-asm >>> >>> One of these options will work in every case. Even ASM's own FAQ >>> recommends the equivalent of shading per consuming library[1]. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> [1] http://asm.ow2.org/doc/faq.html#Q15 >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> You have the clean proxy code here (just rework the method generation >>>> which is a bit different): >>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/tomee/trunk/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/util/proxy/LocalBeanProxyFactory.java >>>> >>>> the point is i already have cases where i want to use asm and asm >>>> shaded, we can multiply the impl number too but it would duplicate the >>>> code. >>>> >>>> About the perf a bench would say it, i didn't take time to do it. >>>> >>>> *Romain Manni-Bucau* >>>> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* >>>> *Blog: >>>> **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> >>>> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* >>>> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/7/29 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> answers inline >>>>>> >>>>>> *Romain Manni-Bucau* >>>>>> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* >>>>>> *Blog: >>>>>> **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> >>>>>> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* >>>>>> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2013/7/28 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting patch. I have some questions and comments: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - You'd additionally need to make sure the impl class is non-final, >>>>>>> no? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> hmm, good question i didn't check but with asm we can subclass final >>>>>> classes, hehe >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We can? How devious... well, then strike my question. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> - note to others that asm4-shaded is used because asm didn't change >>>>>>> packages from v3. Good to see this in use; I hadn't kept track after >>>>>>> submitting that patch. ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i used asm4 since that's the more up to date and it supports java 7 >>>>>> very well. The shade was used since provided in tomee and owb but real >>>>>> asm >>>>>> should be fine (see next point) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Would you explain the purpose of the AsmFacade class? Much of the >>>>>>> "nuts and bolts" work of the patch seems quite different from what I >>>>>>> perceive as "typical asm client code." >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i first wrote it with asm imports but a common issue is: do i use >>>>>> asm? spring-asm-shade? xbean-asm-shade? so AsmFacade is an utility class >>>>>> to >>>>>> allow to use whatever impl is here (almost). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> While I find this to be interesting and quite clever, I feel like it's >>>>> maybe too much. For one point, have you tried searching the web for >>>>> meaningful examples of ASM code? It's not that easy IMO. I think it'd be >>>>> nicer for our ASM code to exemplify "normal" ASM as much as possible. I'd >>>>> say it'd be enough to write the basic impl against stock asm4. If we >>>>> wanted we could then provide one artifact that shades asm4, and another >>>>> that rewrites the compiled classes to depend on xbean-shaded-asm4, and >>>>> surely that would be enough for users to get by with. Then our code would >>>>> be more intelligible as well as useful from the perspective of helping >>>>> other devs learn from good examples. >>>>> >>>>> Back to the subject of cglib, do you expect this implementation should >>>>>>> significantly outperform it for any reason ( if so, which? ), or is the >>>>>>> main motivation that cglib is almost dead as you say? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> since cglib is dead we need something else and i expect the impl to >>>>>> be faster than javassist. Another nice side effect is no dep in a >>>>>> container >>>>>> providing asm. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am taking this as still saying, yes, the ASM proxy implementation >>>>> might not be any faster than cglib. ;) Which is fine. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and regards, >>>>>>> Matt >>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2013 10:58 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" < >>>>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> here is a patch implementing proxying using ASM: >>>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/rmannibucau/6099063 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> having the handlers used by default in ProxyFactory protected would >>>>>>>> avoid to copy them in ASMProxyFactory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Romain Manni-Bucau* >>>>>>>> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* >>>>>>>> *Blog: >>>>>>>> **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> >>>>>>>> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* >>>>>>>> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2013/7/28 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cglib is "almost" dead if i'm right, javassist is alive but not >>>>>>>>> that stable and owb is faster ATM and at least would bring an Apache >>>>>>>>> impl >>>>>>>>> adapted to [proxy]. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note: the fact to be able to reuse InvocationHandler and not a new >>>>>>>>> API is great too >>>>>>>>> Le 27 juil. 2013 20:13, "Matt Benson" <gudnabr...@gmail.com> a >>>>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> AFAIK Mark Struberg's work on the OWB proxies could be >>>>>>>>>> instructive, and >>>>>>>>>> since I've just spent several weeks in ASM hell I might just be a >>>>>>>>>> bit of >>>>>>>>>> use there myself. The only thing is, isn't cglib built on ASM as >>>>>>>>>> well? The >>>>>>>>>> dynamic nature of the various proxy helpers means that we >>>>>>>>>> probably couldn't >>>>>>>>>> really improve on cglib, i.e. only if we could test invocation >>>>>>>>>> matching up >>>>>>>>>> front while creating the proxy class would we be faster. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Matt >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2013 12:22 PM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" < >>>>>>>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Hehe, we benched in owb but lets wait the porting ;) >>>>>>>>>> > Le 27 juil. 2013 16:49, "James Carman" < >>>>>>>>>> ja...@carmanconsulting.com> a >>>>>>>>>> > écrit : >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>>>>>>> > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > > > Once ill have done the monitoring stuff ill try to work on >>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > What would be really cool is to have a "smackdown" once we >>>>>>>>>> get ASM >>>>>>>>>> > > into the mix to see which one performs the best and exactly >>>>>>>>>> how fast >>>>>>>>>> > > they are compared to one another. >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>>>>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
