harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Preprocessor (was Re: [classlib][rmi] Code smell - Thread.sleep() in ActivationGroup method)
Date Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:28:46 GMT


Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> 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). 

Not only that, we create a class library that places weird requirements 
on any VM that wants to use it.  No thanks.

 > At the same time I don't feel
> completely comfortable with the idea of using preprocessor to separate
> J2SE sources from J2ME.

I'm not overjoyed either, but I can't think of many ways that allow 
fairly clear readability without don't require tons of IDE-specific 
tooling.  This is what bothers me about aspects - can you get a real 
clue what's going to happen looking at the source code?

geir

> 
> 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.
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message