But is there some technical reason why it's helpful for ASM proxies to use InvocationHandler specifically? Why wouldn't they just use Invoker directly?
Matt On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > +1 > > jdkproxyfactory can even be hardcoded as a default IMO (without using the > SPI) > > > *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* > > > > 2013/8/1 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > > > You mean all the InvocationHandler classes in JdkProxy? I guess we > > could break those out into top-level classes, but then you'd have > > multiple implementations on your classpath if you made a dependency on > > commons-proxy-jdk. We could move those to "core" I guess. > > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ok for all excepted last point (i was not clear i think). The > > ProxyFactory > > > impl using jdk proxy uses Invocationhandler like the asm implementation > > so > > > it would be great to be able to share the handler classes between both > > impl. > > > > > > *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* > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/8/1 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > ok, > > >> > > > >> > here it is: https://gist.github.com/rmannibucau/6128964 > > >> > > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > >> > > >> > > > >> > 1) i didn't fully get the goal of stub module, any pointers? > > >> > > >> It provides features very similar to the mocking support in libraries > > >> like Mockito/EasyMock. Basically, you can "train" a proxy to do what > > >> you want in certain situations. > > >> > > >> > 2) in ProxyFactory methods have this kind of signature > > >> > > > >> > <T> T createDelegatorProxy( ClassLoader classLoader, > ObjectProvider<?> > > >> > delegateProvider, > > >> > Class<?>... proxyClasses ); > > >> > > > >> > why <T>if ObjectProvider is not ObjectProvider<T> (same for Object > for > > >> > others method). basically T isn't matched. > > >> > > > >> > > >> I'll have to take a look. I believe the <T> is there for "syntactic > > >> sugar", since you can pass in any classes you want really. Hopefully > > >> the user won't do something stupid and they'll actually pass Class<T> > > >> as one of the proxyClasses when they're asking for a return type of > > >> <T> back. Since you can have multiple proxy classes, the > > >> ObjectProvider can't really match any one particular one (it needs to > > >> support all). > > >> > > >> > 3) the jdk implementation uses InvocationHandler for the proxying, > asm > > >> > implementation has almost the same (i didn't check but i started > from > > an > > >> > exact copy), it would be great to get them in a common module to > > avoid to > > >> > duplicate it > > >> > > > >> > > >> We have our own interface for InvocationHander, it's called Invoker. > > >> Other libraries can be "adapted" to ours if you want to reuse > > >> something. > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > >> > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > >
