The plan is to not release a 2.0.2 for 3.4, but we expect to put out dev builds for 3.4 on an as-needed/as-requested basis. I will try to get a 3.4 build out this week.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Thomas Hofmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I just noticed that there are no scheduled dev builds for the 3.4 stream. > Does that mean you don't plan to continue the support for 3.4? > > That would be pretty sad and actually a problem for those who are using IDEs > based on 3.4 like Rational Software Architect or Rational Application > Developer as they are based on 3.4. > > I would be like to try out the performance improvements coming with AspectJ > 1.6.7 in RSA. Is there any way you could build a dev build for 3.4 or is the > code imcompatible now? > > Thanks, > > Thomas > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Hofmann > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:38 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] AspectJ 1.6.7 - faster than ever. > > Hi Andrew, > > I'm eager to see how this effects building the projects I am working on. > Could you please announce here when a new AJDT build with AspectJ 1.6.7 will > be available on the update site? > > Thanks, Thomas > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andy Clement > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:12 PM > To: [email protected]; AspectJ developer discussions > Subject: [aspectj-users] AspectJ 1.6.7 - faster than ever. > > I've been a bit quiet on the list lately, I've had my head down in > AspectJ adding some timing infrastructure. I've just put up a first > blog article about what you can find in the latest AspectJ. Basically > the latest dev builds will produce profiling information for your > pointcuts allowing you to see which pointcuts are hurting your compile > times. Information like this: > > Pointcut matching cost (total=6532ms for 675000 joinpoint match calls): > Time:482ms (jps:#168585) matching against > (staticinitialization(*y*.()) && persingleton(SimpleAspect)) > Time:3970ms (jps:#168585) matching against > (execution(* *t*.*(*)) && persingleton(SimpleAspect)) > Time:538ms (jps:#168584) matching against > (execution(* *f*(..)) && persingleton(SimpleAspect)) > Time:1536ms (jps:#168584) matching against > (execution(* java.lang.CharSequence+.*e*(..)) && > persingleton(SimpleAspect)) > Time:4ms (jps:#662) matching against > (within(*p*) && persingleton(SimpleAspect)) > > Post is here: > http://andrewclement.blogspot.com/2009/11/aspectj-profiling-pointcut-matching.html > > Please have a read and try it out. Based on the results of it I've > changed a few key algorithms internal to AspectJ. What difference > does it make? Well just to wet your appetite: > > Aspect: > aspect SimpleAspect { > before(): execution(* CharSequence+.*e*(..)) {} > } > > AspectJ1.6.6: > ajc -timers SimpleAspect.aj -inpath rt.jar -outjar woven.jar > Compiler took 19260ms > > AspectJ1.6.7 dev builds: > ajc -timers SimpleAspect.aj -inpath rt.jar -outjar woven.jar > Compiler took 12531ms > > I'll put out a second article about matching improvements shortly. It > will cover what is faster (and why it is faster) and how you can make > sure you benefit from the speed up. > > cheers, > Andy > _______________________________________________ > aspectj-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users > _______________________________________________ > aspectj-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users > _______________________________________________ > aspectj-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users > _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
