harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Zakharov" <alexei.zakha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Preprocessor (was Re: [classlib][rmi] Code smell - Thread.sleep() in ActivationGroup method)
Date Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:05:02 GMT
Hi all,

Well, as an individual who has the tendency to pure Java programming I
will be happier if I can control things on the source-code level. I
can't say I don't like the idea about sophisticated JIT with the
powerful AI inside, but if we are talking about logging then IMHO a
good preprocessor is the thing that we need (but we may also continue
to JIT away stuff if we like). At the same time I don't feel
completely comfortable with the idea of using preprocessor to separate
J2SE sources from J2ME.

No clue about particular technology. It can be SableCC, something
custom-made, velocity or whatever.

Thanks,

2006/10/30, Fedotov, Alexei A <alexei.a.fedotov@intel.com>:
>                        Premature optimization is the root of all evil
>                                Donald Knuth
>
>
> >Just a small idea: Let teach JIT to purge this code unless special
> option
> >is ON
>
> +1
>
> I believe a computer should adapt to my way of thinking. I prefer a
> simple and readable code to an efficient one since the former one saves
> the time of my life, why the latter one saves some electricity.
>
> With best regards,
> Alexei Fedotov,
> Intel Java & XML Engineering
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Mikhail Fursov [mailto:mike.fursov@gmail.com]
> >Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:56 PM
> >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; geir@pobox.com
> >Subject: Re: [classlib] Preprocessor (was Re: [classlib][rmi] Code
> smell -
> >Thread.sleep() in ActivationGroup method)
> >
> >On 10/29/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) The Logging Debate That Won't Die - we don't want to encumber our
> >> "production" code with logging or even with runtime enablement checks
> >> for logging i.e.
> >>
> >>       if (logging.isDebugEnabled())
> >>
> >> but it's clear that some people still want to use it for debugging.
> >
> >
> >Just a small idea: Let teach JIT to purge this code unless special
> option
> >is ON
> >? Doing this we solve performance issue at least .
> >
> >If we did this, I assume that our build becomes a two step process,
> >> first pre-process the code to create  separate "buildable source",
> which
> >> would go into source jars and such for debugging purposes.  Then our
> >> current javac/jar process.
> >>
> >> I'd also like to be able to work in an IDE with the pre-proc stuff
> >> invisible if possible...
> >
> >
> >This is the main problem. Backporting of your changes from the
> "buildable
> >source" to the "source with preprocessor" could have more overhead then
> >support of a separate branch for different Java version.


-- 
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division

Mime
View raw message