On 20/02/14 12:08, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:11:35 -0300, Philip Aston <phil...@mail.com> > wrote: > >> Well, the InstructionBuilder API requires you to understand the byte >> code that's generated. Also, I agree that it is sane to transform >> existing classes, and I originally tried to do so but found Plastic >> didn't let me implement abstract methods from my superclass. This is >> possibly a Plastic bug. > > I guess Plastic wasn't built is a general purpose bytecode > manipulation library, but as a way of simplifying the writing of > Tapestry-IoC code, hence its limitations. > > Any test cases for not being able to implement abstract methods from > an abstract superclass? Is the bytecode for this different from the > one used for implementing an abstract method from an interface?
I'll work one up. I couldn't implement existing interface methods either. > >> With respect, no Plastic experts have responded. Should I take my >> request to the dev list? > > Yeah, I think this conversation fits there. > Will do. Thank you all for your thoughts so far. - Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
