Re: [aspectj-dev] BCEL to ASM

[Adrian Colyer <adrian_colyer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In practice this would make little difference
to AspectJ. We have been maintaining our own version of BCEL in the AspectJ
source tree for some time now - our version has *significant* performance
enhancements over straight BCEL and full support for Java 5 features. All
of the previous points made on this list about the merits/demerits of a
switch to ASM and the possible timing of that still stand, but I don't
think this news makes any material difference to the arguments. 

No AspectJ user should be troubled by
the BCEL news, the AspectJ stack is fully supported by the AspectJ development
team.

-- Adrian
Adrian_Colyer@xxxxxxxxxx

Alexandre Vasseur <avasseur@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: aspectj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

15/06/2005 09:29

Please respond to
Alexandre Vasseur <avasseur@xxxxxxxxx>; Please respond to
AspectJ developer discussions <aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	AspectJ developer discussions <aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	[aspectj-dev] BCEL to ASM

Hi

I would like to bring to the table the following risk that we had
foresight in AspectWerkz and for which I would not be suprised if it
really happens by Q1 2006.

"proposal to post deprecation notice on BCEL webpage"
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-bcel-dev/200505.mbox/%3c1116465312.3875.40.camel@localhost.localdomain%3e
(read some the related thread if you have time).

I would invite everyone concerned with AspectJ dev to think about
possible implication of maintaining as done today the modified
enhanced BCEL version, as well as thinking about the development
effort and risks associated to port AspectJ to ASM at some stage - not
for prototyping purpose or abstraction purpose but for the real
official N-th release.

Alex
_______________________________________________
aspectj-dev mailing list
aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-dev