[forge-dev] reflection to access classes in project dependencies
fruehbeck at aon.at
Thu Feb 14 11:22:17 EST 2013
exactly what I was looking for :-))
Am 14.02.2013 16:55, schrieb George Gastaldi:
> Hi Thomas,
> Have a look in Forge 2.0 source code. We're using javassist at it's
> best in the proxy module
> Em 14/02/2013, às 13:53, Thomas Frühbeck <fruehbeck at aon.at
> <mailto:fruehbeck at aon.at>> escreveu:
>> Hi John,
>> my two cents:
>> - this feature is a must-have, if Forge should be more than a
>> tool to iniitialize projects, really great idea
>> - being pragmatic I would say this calls for proxy classes,
>> similar to CDI decorators or the copy-on-write strategy
>> (AFAIK the downside to CDI decorators is that they need interfaces on
>> the base classes, thus again requiring changes of the classes if they
>> hadnt been designed for it firstplace.)
>> I have a very similar problem I am currently trying to solve with
>> silly wrapper classes and was starting to think about dynamic proxy
>> generation - unfortunately I have _no_ experience with such
>> technology other than being simple user :-/
>> Have you thought about javassist? Is it an option at all?
>> Am 14.02.2013 16:21, schrieb John Franey:
>>> My motivation for this email is to satisfy FORGE-773. However, this
>>> is also related to FORGE-563 and FORGE-424, and resolution could
>>> enable other features.
>>> I have written a prototype:
>>> 1) an implementation of the forge java api interfaces which
>>> delegates to java's reflection, offering a read only perspective of
>>> java components.
>>> 2) a forge module, currently a facet, to search for a given binary
>>> class in the project's dependencies and returns the result wrapped
>>> in the above delegate.
>>> These are demonstrable in a unit test.
>>> My dilemma now is how to integrate these into the forge project.
>>> There are a few different areas, but I'll start with this:
>>> For some callers, a java class is a java class, whether it
>>> originates as source code (from the current forge project) or is a
>>> class from the dependency set. For example, scaffolding primarily
>>> is a read only operation. In this use case, it would be simpler for
>>> these clients to have a single interface to resolve classes because
>>> whether a class is source or binary is not relevant to the use case.
>>> On the other hand, there is a set of classes in a user's project
>>> that are modifiable. In these cases, a java class is not a java
>>> class. Forge components might want the distinction somehow. There
>>> ought the be some distinction of which class is modifiable and which
>>> is not.
>>> Naively, I took the first thinking that the existing forge java
>>> model would be adequate. To have separate java api for read-only
>>> and read-write java model objects seems a fundamental addition to
>>> the java model which requires much more effort. In absence of such
>>> a model, I though to implement 'no-op' for those code changing
>>> methods (e.g., Named.setName() would be inert). I assumed that
>>> forge component that change source code would have necessary context
>>> to know when it is operating on a source code module, avoiding
>>> attempts to modify a binary class.
>>> So, I'm looking for discussion and consensus on the above. Any
>>> forge-dev mailing list
>>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> forge-dev mailing list
>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:forge-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the forge-dev