harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Fedotov, Alexei A" <alexei.a.fedo...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [classlib] Preprocessor (was Re: [classlib][rmi] Code smell - Thread.sleep() in ActivationGroup method)
Date Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:10:49 GMT
Alexey wrote,
> > At the same time I don't feel
>> completely comfortable with the idea of using preprocessor to
separate
>> J2SE sources from J2ME.

A preprocessor looks a possible choice for maintaining several profiles
(eg Java ME vs Java SE). We need compact and preferably precompiled
sources to be efficient on small devices.

There is one more option. Can we use a good source control system
instead? Java ME workspace could be a child of Java SE one. I believe
something like BitKeeper or Teemware can keep things different when
needed and propagate bug fixes and patches painlessly for the common
part.

With best regards,
Alexei Fedotov,
Intel Java & XML Engineering

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:alexei.zakharov@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:05 PM
>To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [classlib] Preprocessor (was Re: [classlib][rmi] Code
smell -
>Thread.sleep() in ActivationGroup method)
>
>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