cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Reinhard Poetz" <>
Subject RE: Java continuations with joeq
Date Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:48:46 GMT

From: Bertrand Delacretaz

> Le Samedi, 21 fév 2004, à 17:13 Europe/Zurich, Christopher Oliver a 
> écrit :
> > ...I did some informal tests and it appears to actually be 
> slower than
> > interpreted Rhino (not sure exactly why, perhaps because Rhino 
> > bytecodes are higher level), but was significantly faster than 
> > BeanShell (which  is a Java source code interpreter).
> Is it a lot slower, do you think it would make a significant 
> difference?
> > 2) It has an LGPL license.
> Means we might have to talk its author into changing the license, it 
> wouldn't be the first one ;-)
> Note also an interesting comment of Geert Bevin on Steven's 
> weblog at 
>> ives/001745.html, he 
> says "I'll soon have added support for 
> continuations with Groovy in RIFE too"
>  From what I've seen Groovy looks like a very nice and fairly 
> complete 
> scripting language, which also has an ASF-like license.
> So, if Groovy is really close to have continuations, we might want to 
> wait or help?
> The only mention of continuations that I found on the groovy mailing 
> lists is at

Since Cocoon supports continuations they seem to attract more and more
interest in the web development world ;-)
Anyway, for me only **Java** Flowscript would really make sense because
this would safe the two (technical) arguments against JavaScript flow:
Java is type safe and it is compiled. So you can catch (some) errors at
compile time and not at run time. 

If there is support for Groovy, Pyhton, [or whatever] continuations, I
personally don't care because it doesn't make a real difference
(languages are a matter of taste ...) and I don't think we should spread
our energy over different Flowscript interpreter implementations which
have to be maintained.

Only my 2 cents ...


View raw message