Your initial statement is right however I don't get why we shouldn't do it. basically same applies for Unsafe which is used by all frameworks. I don't say we should drop spi to use it, just we should support it as a base when nothing is provided. IMO this would really simplify the setup of [proxy] Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2013/11/25 sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > On 25 November 2013 07:18, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello guys, >> >> Maybe too early and I'm pretty I'll not get time to work on it in the >> following months but saw yesterday jdk8 contains asm repackaged: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/a40b0f51613b >> >> This could be great for [proxy] to support it in main module and avoid >> the need to add any bytecode library from the user perspective no? > > However, it looks like this is part of the intermal workings of JDK8. > > Unless there is a public API, it would tie proxy to working with one > particular Java implementation. > > I don't think we should do that. > >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
