Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: 216.86.168.178 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of geir@pobox.com)
Message-ID: <4544EFBE.2080704@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:15:26 -0500
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com>
Reply-To: geir@pobox.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib] Preprocessor (was Re: [classlib][rmi] Code smell -
 Thread.sleep() in ActivationGroup method)
References: <3b3f27c60610282200w2445a56ena39736e4a6c4fed5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <906dd82e0610290109h52808a4fo79eb800c7a7bbb1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4544A6F7.3070807@pobox.com>
 <bc79dd600610290955g18d5c4bejbfe4caa624d384a7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bc79dd600610290955g18d5c4bejbfe4caa624d384a7@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Mikhail Fursov wrote:
> On 10/29/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <geir@pobox.com 
> <mailto: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 .

Well, then we have a classlibrary that is only good for use with JIT's 
that have been specially trained to find code that looks like very 
common code for logging implementations.

The results could be hilarious, actually.

> 
>     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.

No - you'd edit the original source directly - you wouldn't edit the 
pre-processed source.

But a plugin would let you flip between original and processed...

geir

> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mikhail Fursov