Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-21 Thread James Carman
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Can you elaborate? UUID transports simply two long values as data in the > object stream. > As I said, I "figured." I guess I never really looked into it. I guess two longs do make a light (object that is). Sorry, couldn't resist. --

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-21 Thread Jörg Schaible
Hi James, James Carman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Jörg Schaible > wrote: >> Interesting idea, but keep the UUID, no need for String conversion ... >> ;-) >> > > I figured the UUID was more "heavyweight" as far as serialization was > concerned. So, that's why I usually just conve

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-20 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Interesting idea, but keep the UUID, no need for String conversion ... ;-) > I figured the UUID was more "heavyweight" as far as serialization was concerned. So, that's why I usually just convert them to Strings. --

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-20 Thread Jörg Schaible
James Carman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matt Benson wrote: >> Not quite. I would like to move the RecordedInvocation class to some >> sort of support package where it can be reused beyond InvocationRecorder, >> e.g. in the code I'll be working on. Perhaps a rename of the class to

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-20 Thread Matt Benson
On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:01 PM, James Carman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matt Benson wrote: >> Not quite. I would like to move the RecordedInvocation class to some sort >> of support package where it can be reused beyond InvocationRecorder, e.g. in >> the code I'll be working on.

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-20 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > Not quite.  I would like to move the RecordedInvocation class to some sort of > support package where it can be reused beyond InvocationRecorder, e.g. in the > code I'll be working on.  Perhaps a rename of the class too, though I'm not > sur

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-20 Thread Matt Benson
On Jul 20, 2010, at 10:44 AM, James Carman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Matt Benson wrote: >> Yep, 3.0... we'd need to get a snapshot published from [lang], which should >> be dead easy now that we're using Nexus in the parent POM. >> > > I say go for it. I'll put that in the m

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-20 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Matt Benson wrote: > Yep, 3.0... we'd need to get a snapshot published from [lang], which should > be dead easy now that we're using Nexus in the parent POM. > I say go for it. As for the recording stuff, have you committed your changes? Is the recording not w

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-20 Thread Matt Benson
On Jul 20, 2010, at 9:55 AM, James Carman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Matt Benson wrote: >> So how do you feel about making [lang] a dependency to use its reflection >> util classes for [proxy] 2? >> > > I've never been one to be averse to using dependencies, but there are > fo

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-20 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Matt Benson wrote: > So how do you feel about making [lang] a dependency to use its reflection > util classes for [proxy] 2? > I've never been one to be averse to using dependencies, but there are folks who would rather copy code rather than add a dependency if

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-20 Thread Matt Benson
On Jul 14, 2010, at 10:22 PM, James Carman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Matt Benson wrote: >> I believe that's the code I originally pulled in [lang] for TypeUtils. >> However, since the latest contributions I've merged, the [lang] one now far >> surpasses the handling in [proxy].

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-15 Thread Jörg Schaible
Hi James, James Carman wrote: > Well, the proxy code needs a bit of work. First, I'd say, I need to > rollback the serializability requirement for all generated proxies. Huh? At least JDK and CGLIB generated proxies are always serializable, you have no choice. - Jörg ---

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-14 Thread James Carman
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > I believe that's the code I originally pulled in [lang] for TypeUtils. >  However, since the latest contributions I've merged, the [lang] one now far > surpasses the handling in [proxy].  So I know the recording is there, but I > hadn't tracke

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-14 Thread Matt Benson
On Jul 14, 2010, at 9:15 PM, James Carman wrote: Well, the proxy code needs a bit of work. First, I'd say, I need to rollback the serializability requirement for all generated proxies. It's easy enough to make your proxies serializable if you just add java.io.Serializable to the list of classe

Re: [proxy] 2.0 WAS Re: a bit of commons-style code in search of a home

2010-07-14 Thread James Carman
Well, the proxy code needs a bit of work. First, I'd say, I need to rollback the serializability requirement for all generated proxies. It's easy enough to make your proxies serializable if you just add java.io.Serializable to the list of classes/interfaces you want proxied (I'll put in a test cas