"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | This just lets you create a ClassInfo from the bytecode. | But for this to work properly it needs to have a understanding as to which | classloader the class/bytecode should be assigned. | yes, well yes and no. when creating a CtClass object yes, when creating a ClassFile object then no. as mentioned ClassFile is a impl detail, but we need the functionality it brings. - but if we can implement what we currently need from ClassFile to *ClassInfo* then no. eg, atm we can:ClassFile cf = new ClassFile( new DataInputStream(new FileInputStream(file))); "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | "stale.pedersen(a)jboss.org" wrote : | | - do finegrained operations/checks ala annotation visibility (which is only possible with javassist and not java.lang.reflect afaik) | | | | Not sure why you need this. I assume you mean being able to look | at annotations that are not Runtime visible? Is that really a good idea? | we use it a lot in aop so yes, we need it. "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | Unless you mean being able to get the resulting byte code from the manipulation | so you can defineClass() on it I don't think it is a good idea. | | Allowing access to implementation details is not a good idea, | e.g. the deprecated TypeInfo.getClass() should not be there. | | Instead we need to extend the abstraction to make this unnecessary. | This could include some helper methods to defineClass() from a ClassInfo. | i was not thinking of getting the .class. i was thinking of something like CtClass.getClassFile() since atm that is the only way we can get info like annotation visibility, but if we can implement to get that from TypeInfo/etc its not needed. for now we havent added any methods to add/change methods/fields/etc to ClassInfo, we just changed the factory to not use the .class representation when creating the ClassInfo object to use the CtClass instead. - which i guess it was meant to anyway if im understanding adrian correct. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4201779#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...