Remy Maucherat wrote:
>
> > I've been giving this topic considerable thought for
> > the last month. Now that JSTL is getting close to
> > official release, performance may become a bigger
> > issue.
> >
> > I've been evaluating JSTL and experimenting with using
> > it for complex rendering log
> I've been giving this topic considerable thought for
> the last month. Now that JSTL is getting close to
> official release, performance may become a bigger
> issue.
>
> I've been evaluating JSTL and experimenting with using
> it for complex rendering logic. From what I've seen,
> the common pat
I am still in vacation mode, unil Thursday. Just want to giva some
quick response.
>
> Like Costin, I don't think that there would be much performance penalty
> by calling a private method. In fact, if we want to reduce the number
> of "unnecessary" calls, I have another idea... well I have t
I've been giving this topic considerable thought for
the last month. Now that JSTL is getting close to
official release, performance may become a bigger
issue.
I've been evaluating JSTL and experimenting with using
it for complex rendering logic. From what I've seen,
the common pattern of usage
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Denis Benoit wrote:
> 1. In the generated page, there is a lot of consecutive:
>
> out.write("some string");
> out.write("another string");
> and so on.
>
>Why don't we merge all these consecutive strings together?
>
> out.write("some string\nan
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Kin-Man Chung wrote:
> My proposal to solving this problem is to generate codes for a tag
> handler (including its body) to a separate method. This is only feasible
> if the tag action element and its body does not include any scripting
> elements. The current trend (in the
I don't think the overhead of calling a private/final method is
very big, especially with hotspot or any decent jit.
If this turns to have an impact, we can turn it on only for pages
with many tags, but I think it would be fine for all pages ( without
scriptlets ).
BTW, given that the logic i
"Kin-Man Chung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The JVM limits the size of a method to less than 65535 bytes. This limit
> can easily be reached by a JSP page with 50-80 custom tags, depending
> on the javac compiler and the complexity of the tags. The use of
> "largefile" option delays reaching t
The JVM limits the size of a method to less than 65535 bytes. This limit
can easily be reached by a JSP page with 50-80 custom tags, depending
on the javac compiler and the complexity of the tags. The use of
"largefile" option delays reaching the limit a little, but not by much.
That's one of th
