Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <40390795.7090801@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:48:37 -0800
From: Christopher Oliver <res1cf5x@verizon.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: Java continuations with joeq
References: <13EA8488-648C-11D8-8E8F-000393CFE402@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <13EA8488-648C-11D8-8E8F-000393CFE402@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> Le Samedi, 21 f�v 2004, � 17:13 Europe/Zurich, Christopher Oliver a 
> �crit :
>
>> ...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?
>
My opinion: probably not. However, I just thought of another drawback 
with using Joeq's interpreter, namely you wouldn't be able to debug it 
with a standard Java debugger. The Brakes-like approach doesn't have 
this limitation. In addition, since that approach simply modifies the 
bytecode it would still be optimized by Hotspot and would still 
outperform any scripting language. Torsten, what's the status of your 
work on this?

Chris