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 thoughts?

Regards,

John