3:41 p.m.
New subject: [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods
-1
For me it looks like setting implementation details in the specification, a
really wrong idea imho.
Plus, what does "proxy" mean ? We need to define the term in the spec. Does
it refer to java.lang.Proxy ? We all know that this class has been written
a long time ago, it has poor performance, and has already submitted
replacements based on MethodHandle and INDY.
José
2016-02-11 12:09 GMT+01:00 George Gastaldi <ggastald(a)redhat.com>:
+1
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
--
Java le soir <http://blog.paumard.org> Cours Java en ligne
<http://blog.paumard.org/cours-tutoriaux/>
Twitter <http://twitter.com/#!/JosePaumard> Paris JUG
<http://www.parisjug.org>
M : +33 6 76 82 91 47
3:55 p.m.
New subject: [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods
I have no clue where some folks get the idea that I introduced a new concept!
The term ‚proxy‘ is well defined both in the the whole Java universe (see
java.lang.reflect.Proxy) and also got introduced in the CDI spec as early as 2008. That
makes 8 years now… Wanna get rid of all that?
it has poor performance, and
FUD and not true anymore since
ages!
It’s an implementation detail. In OpenWebBeans we do 10 MILLION proxy invocations in 20
milliseconds on my notebook. I don’t call that slow…
LieGrue,
strub
Am 12.02.2016 um 15:41 schrieb José Paumard
<jose.paumard(a)gmail.com>:
-1
For me it looks like setting implementation details in the specification, a really wrong
idea imho.
Plus, what does "proxy" mean ? We need to define the term in the spec. Does it
refer to java.lang.Proxy ? We all know that this class has been written a long time ago,
it has poor performance, and has already submitted replacements based on MethodHandle and
INDY.
José
2016-02-11 12:09 GMT+01:00 George Gastaldi <ggastald(a)redhat.com>:
+1
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the
Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other
ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual
property rights inherent in such information.
--
Java le soir Cours Java en ligne
Twitter Paris JUG
M : +33 6 76 82 91 47
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the
Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other
ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual
property rights inherent in such information.
4:03 p.m.
New subject: [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods
Sorry Mark I dont have the time nor the energy to go through one more
useless polemic with you.
You can check this: https://www.jfokus.se/jfokus15/preso/proxy2.pdf.
2016-02-12 15:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>:
I have no clue where some folks get the idea that I introduced a new
concept!
The term ‚proxy‘ is well defined both in the the whole Java universe (see
java.lang.reflect.Proxy) and also got introduced in the CDI spec as early
as 2008. That makes 8 years now… Wanna get rid of all that?
> it has poor performance, and
FUD and not true anymore since ages!
It’s an implementation detail. In OpenWebBeans we do 10 MILLION proxy
invocations in 20 milliseconds on my notebook. I don’t call that slow…
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 12.02.2016 um 15:41 schrieb José Paumard <jose.paumard(a)gmail.com>:
>
> -1
>
> For me it looks like setting implementation details in the
specification, a really wrong idea imho.
>
> Plus, what does "proxy" mean ? We need to define the term in the spec.
Does it refer to java.lang.Proxy ? We all know that this class has been
written a long time ago, it has poor performance, and has already submitted
replacements based on MethodHandle and INDY.
>
> José
>
>
> 2016-02-11 12:09 GMT+01:00 George Gastaldi <ggastald(a)redhat.com>:
> +1
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>
>
>
> --
> Java le soir Cours Java en ligne
> Twitter Paris JUG
> M : +33 6 76 82 91 47
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
--
Java le soir <http://blog.paumard.org> Cours Java en ligne
<http://blog.paumard.org/cours-tutoriaux/>
Twitter <http://twitter.com/#!/JosePaumard> Paris JUG
<http://www.parisjug.org>
M : +33 6 76 82 91 47
4:35 p.m.
New subject: [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods
José, the whole CDI spec requires proxying since almost the earliest betas (was about
early 2008 when we introduced NormalScope). The UnPROXYableResolutionException + the
wording about this implementation detail also exists since then. This is really nothing I
freshly introduced (as your answer seemed to imply).
Proxying is a design pattern and has not much to do with j.l.r.Proxy and it’s problems.
jlr.Proxy (as most reflect stuff) also already became 100x faster since it’s introduction
in java-1.3. The impl in older java versions was not great, but the API itself is not that
bad. Of course it misses lambdas, etc. But all that doesn’t matter as we don’t use it
anyway. proxying as pattern != jlr.Proxy
Of course we miss an easy and portable way to create subclassing proxies in Java. I
totally agree with Rémy regarding this. But if you look at CDI-580 then we already
proposed to introduce this feature. It has potential to be an own JSR but due to the
overhead in the JCP and the limited time we could also do this as part of the CDI EG. Kind
of how the Transaction, Interceptor and early JPA spec got handled inside the EJB EG.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 12.02.2016 um 16:03 schrieb José Paumard
<jose.paumard(a)gmail.com>:
Sorry Mark I dont have the time nor the energy to go through one more useless polemic
with you.
You can check this: https://www.jfokus.se/jfokus15/preso/proxy2.pdf.
2016-02-12 15:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>:
I have no clue where some folks get the idea that I introduced a new concept!
The term ‚proxy‘ is well defined both in the the whole Java universe (see
java.lang.reflect.Proxy) and also got introduced in the CDI spec as early as 2008. That
makes 8 years now… Wanna get rid of all that?
> it has poor performance, and
FUD and not true anymore since ages!
It’s an implementation detail. In OpenWebBeans we do 10 MILLION proxy invocations in 20
milliseconds on my notebook. I don’t call that slow…
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 12.02.2016 um 15:41 schrieb José Paumard <jose.paumard(a)gmail.com>:
>
> -1
>
> For me it looks like setting implementation details in the specification, a really
wrong idea imho.
>
> Plus, what does "proxy" mean ? We need to define the term in the spec.
Does it refer to java.lang.Proxy ? We all know that this class has been written a long
time ago, it has poor performance, and has already submitted replacements based on
MethodHandle and INDY.
>
> José
>
>
> 2016-02-11 12:09 GMT+01:00 George Gastaldi <ggastald(a)redhat.com>:
> +1
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under
the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all
other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual
property rights inherent in such information.
>
>
>
> --
> Java le soir Cours Java en ligne
> Twitter Paris JUG
> M : +33 6 76 82 91 47
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under
the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all
other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual
property rights inherent in such information.
--
Java le soir Cours Java en ligne
Twitter Paris JUG
M : +33 6 76 82 91 47
3273
days inactive
3274
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
George Gastaldi -
José Paumard -
Mark Struberg