>Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>
>>"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>BSF could, and probably should, be used to implement the language
>>>attribute.
>>
>>We did that internally for our JSP compiler back in '99. I thought
>>that got contributed to Jasper, but I could be wrong.
>>If it hasn't then definitely that's a worthwhile thing to do IMHO
>>as it allows any BSF language to be used to write a JSP.
>>Does anyone know for sure whether Jasper uses it or not?
>
> Jasper does not use it and I really don't think using BSF in this role
> (as a way to script enable JSPs) is the 'right thing to do'.
You have a better alternative proposal to implement the language attribute?
> First major problem is abysmal performance.
> I don't see how [this] problem can be solved.
Interpreted languages don't have to have the performance of the native JVM.
The more that BSF is used, the more impetus to push performance. What do
you see as the BSF contributed overhead, compared to the performance of the
underlying language engine, and the obstacles to reducing overhead?
> Second major problem is with debugging.
> The second problem can probably be solved(?).
Well, then its not much of a problem, is it? :-)
> Oh, one more thing pops to mind... use of scripting languages from the
> Java environment of JSP is rather unnatural.
Unnatural or not in the internals, it is part of the JSP Specification. IBM
has had this working for some years in their WebSphere adaptation of Tomcat,
so I would venture to suggest that they represent at least one set of domain
experts. What are hacks in their jasper patch could be re-engineered more
cleanly, right?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
