invoking a interface default method from within an InvocationHandler

[Cédric Champeau]

For what it's worth, in Groovy, we have two separate pathes to "implement
classes at runtime", that is to say generating proxies. In the case of an
interface, we rely on the JDK proxy just because it is *much* faster than
generating a class through ASM. I mean that generating a class in ASM is
orders of magnitude slower (at least in our case) than relying on the JDK
proxy adapters. Of course, it then depends on how often the method is
called, because at some point a generated class will be faster, but so far,
the choice we made is better in practice, because lots of people do not
realize that if they do "foo as SomeInterface" in a loop, they are
generating a new proxy for each call...

2014-10-20 11:19 GMT+02:00 Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com>:

>
> On Oct 18, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Peter Levart <peter.levart at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul, Remi,
> >
> > The complete solution will require new API, but the
> java.lang.reflect.Proxy API could be improved a bit too. With introduction
> of default interface methods it is somehow broken now. Default interface
> methods enable interface evolution, but break existing Proxy
> InvocationHandler(s) which are not prepared to handle new methods. So
> perhaps a small improvement to Proxz API could be to add new factory method
> that takes an additional a boolean flag indicating whether generated proxy
> should override default methods and forward their invocation to
> InvocationHandler or not. An all-or-nothing approach. I know that even that
> is not trivial. Generated proxy class can implement multiple interfaces and
> there can be conflicts. In that case, the easiest solution is to bail out
> and refuse to generate a proxy class with such combination of interfaces.
>
> It would also be useful to investigate a safe mechanism so that an
> InvocationHandler implementation can call a default method, which then
> allows an impl to explicitly deal with conflicts.
>
>
> >
> > A starting point could be to re-implement current functionality using
> ASM and then start experimenting with different approaches. What do you
> think?
> >
>
> Not sure replacing the bytecode generating implementation, in
> sun.misc.ProxyGenerator, with an ASM equivalent will really help all that
> much functionality wise, that may be nice from a unification perspective
> but does introduce some risk. A quicker route might be to work out how to
> filter out the default methods that are overridden in the existing code.
>
> Paul.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mlvm-dev mailing list
> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/mlvm-dev/attachments/20141020/010a4389/attachment.html>