[jboss-user] [EJB 3.0 Development] New message: "Re: Proxy SPI"
jaikiran pai
do-not-reply at jboss.com
Fri Feb 12 09:11:29 EST 2010
User development,
A new message was posted in the thread "Proxy SPI":
http://community.jboss.org/message/526048#526048
Author : jaikiran pai
Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/jaikiran
Message:
--------------------------------------------------------------
> jaikiran wrote:
>
> Based on our discussion yesterday about a need for a proxy-spi, here's what my initial thoughts are. The following SPI keeps in mind both nointerface view (which uses Javassist) and the other business view (which use j.l.r.Proxy).
>
> My initial thoughts around this were, to have a ProxyFactory which at the minimum has this:
>
> *public* *interface* ProxyFactory
> {
>
> /**
> * Creates a proxy which is castable to the interfaces passed and associates
> * the passed invocationHanlder with the proxy
> */
> Object createProxy(Class[] interfaces, InvocationHandler invocationHandler);
> ...
>
> }
>
>
>
>
> With this, we could then have had a JavaReflectProxyFactory which would return Proxy.newInstance(...) and a JavassistProxyFactory which would do its own proxy creation logic. Note that currently the Javassist proxy factory for nointerface view uses a j.l.r.InvocationHandler, but that's a implementation detail, and as such should not be exposed through the SPI. i.e. the createProxy shouldn't ideally be expecting a j.l.r.InvocationHandler as a param.
After discussing this with Carlo over IRC, i realize that expecting InvocationHandler isn't a bad deal after all. Infact the above SPI looks much simpler and better compared to what i came up with, in the rest of my previous post.
--------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/526048#526048
More information about the jboss-user
mailing list