I have had a look now, sorry for the delayed reply, the `Enhancer` component is quite a bit of code.

I am still sure that everything can be done with Byte Buddy. However, for some bits it is required to fall back to using direct byte code manipulation using the underlying ASM API as for example when doing the "extended enhancement". I agree that the `Enhancer` creation should be moved to the `BytecodeProvider` API. I do however wonder how the `EnhancementContext` should be refactored as it relies on ASM specific types. The easiest way would be to declare some form of "annotatable element" for implementing the required behavior without replying on a particular byte code provider.

How should we move forward with this? I am happy to help with the implementation; on my current GitHub fork, I offer an implementation of the current byte code provider contract. For the Enhancer, I probably need some help from someone who is more familiar with the implementation.