Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

JooFlux: Hijacking Java 7 InvokeDynamic To Support Live Code Modifications

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1210.1039 v1 pith:NZZVC7RY submitted 2012-10-03 cs.OS cs.PL

classification cs.OScs.PL
keywords joofluxdynamicjavalanguagesagentinvokedynamicmodificationsplatforms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Changing functional and non-functional software implementation at runtime is useful and even sometimes critical both in development and production environments. JooFlux is a JVM agent that allows both the dynamic replacement of method implementations and the application of aspect advices. It works by doing bytecode transformation to take advantage of the new invokedynamic instruction added in Java SE 7 to help implementing dynamic languages for the JVM. JooFlux can be managed using a JMX agent so as to operate dynamic modifications at runtime, without resorting to a dedicated domain-specific language. We compared JooFlux with existing AOP platforms and dynamic languages. Results demonstrate that JooFlux performances are close to the Java ones --- with most of the time a marginal overhead, and sometimes a gain --- where AOP platforms and dynamic languages present significant overheads. This paves the way for interesting future evolutions and applications of JooFlux.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dynamic Software Updating in Java -- Comparing Concepts and Resource Demands

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A comparative benchmark of four Java DSU approaches shows that JVM-level approaches support more complex updates at higher steady-state cost, while agent/DAOP approaches are cheaper but more limited.

Pith tools