Costin & Craig,
I agree with both of you. The optimizations that Craig mentioned are
exactly the ones that I was hoping to add. Yes, the least fun part
will probably be adding to the existing generator code. But, until a
new generating architecture is in place, I think it would be good to
go ahead and try to add the code to the existing jasper.
When the next gen jasper gets a lot of momentum, we can add the
tag related optimizations to it.
-casey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
> > I know Costin loves evolutionary change :-), and it's certainly a valid
> > approach to Jasper.
> >
> > But there is also another approach we should consider - a green-field
> > recoding of at least some of the major components (conforming to an
> > agreed-upon overall architecture, of course).
>
> > NOTE: For most of the rest of the overall problem (the PageContext
> > implementation, how Jasper fits in with the servlet container, and so
> > on) evolution is probably a very reasonable strategy. On the compiler,
> > though, I'm not so sure.
>
> If we are talking about the compiler ( or code generator ): I partially
> agree, the current architecture will get a lot of pressure from more
> complex optimizations or tricks.
>
> But before we can even start to change the generator we need to do the
> initial refactoring and get the other components in order ( runtime, etc).
> We can also get some optimizations in, and use that to learn what's needed
> from a new generator architecture.
>
> I just don't think the new generator can happen in a 3.4 space - my goal
> is just to enable an effort to rewrite it, and gather as much information
> as possible about it's requirements.
>
> In any case - whatever happens in the current generator with regard to
> generated code will still be usefull for any new generator architecture.
> And if certain optimizations can't be done - that's even better, because
> it would help us understand what's needed.
>
> I had big hopes for an XSLT based generator, and I still think it may be a
> good way to implement the code generator - and I hope to hear other
> ideas.
>
> Costin
