No, but believe me you want a handler (this one or invoker) to maintain the code and keep it easy.
*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 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> > That's my point; it doesn't. > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:49 AM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com > >wrote: > > > Does the ASM API require a java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler? > > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Well for the maintainance it is easier (and not really slower) to use a > > > little abstraction. InvocationHandler/Inoker is fine. Since JdkProxy > uses > > > the exact same code i throught it could be shared. > > > > > > *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 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> The behavior of proxies is specified by Invokers, ObjectProviders, and > > >> Interceptors. Each ProxyFactory implementation bridges from these > > >> interfaces to the most appropriate mechanism specific to the target > > >> technology. In the case of ASM, I would think that would be direct > calls > > >> against the proxy interface implementations themselves. > > >> > > >> Matt > > >> On Aug 1, 2013 9:21 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> a sed shold almost work but the issue is the same: the code is > > >>> duplicated, no? is there invoker elsewhere? > > >>> > > >>> *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 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> > > >>> > > >>>> 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 > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > >
