giacomo a écrit :
>
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
> >
> > Peter Royal a écrit :
> > >
> > > At 12:31 PM 10/5/2001 +0200, you wrote:
> > > >Here I have the feeling we are doing the same mistake over again: the
> > > >sitemap was compiled when no hotspot tecnique was present and we had to
> > > >avoid excessive use of esternal recurrent logic when we could "unroll"
> > > >the tree traversal and let java execute it directly by transforming it
> > > >in code.
> > >
> > > I think the sitemap is really metadata that configures the cocoon engine.
> > > So in that respect are we mixing concerns by converting metadata into
> > > program code?
> > >
> > > I took your previous words about the removal of hotspots and applied those
> > > to our XSP pages in house. Before I was recreating the same java code
> > > repeatedly. As an answer to the hotspot issue, I moved the code into a
> > > separate class file with static methods, just like many of the internal
> > > logicsheets.
> > >
> > > I mention this because maybe we could apply some of the same techniques to
> > > the sitemap? Rather than generating a bunch of different methods, etc,
> > > could we not just compile the sitemap to a bunch of static variables
> > > (metadata) with method calls to do the actual work? Thus gaining some of
> > > the benefits of hotspotting? That might provide a migration plan towards a
> > > more radical design. It might also be
> > >
> > > As more and more people come on board using version 2, we need to protect
> > > the investment people are making in the current sitemap model. At least
> > > from the standpoint of providing a seamless transition to what is next, in
> > > both functionality and brain power required to understand.
> >
> > The transition is assured by using the same syntax, and I'm not sure it
> > would have to be changed with an interpreted engine. The only
> > compatibility break would be for CodeFactory selectors and matchers :
> > those ones would have to be rewritten as regular components. So I think
> > an interpreted sitemap engine could integrate smoothly in the current
> > architecture.
>
> I'm not so enthusiastic about rewriting the sitemap engine from
> compiled to interpreted. Rather a new approach for the hole
> URIspace-/Flow-/resource-definition should be taken (as Berin proposed).
The main purpose is to switch from a code-generation approach to an
interpreted one. IMO, code generation is most usefull when the language
offers an exit point to the target language like in JSP and XSP but
unlike sitemap. XSP also can be extended using logicsheets by people
with medium XSLT knowledge.
Sitemap is a different problem. It's not an optional component like XSP,
but the main processor of incoming requests. If this processor isn't
pluggable in Cocoon, this strongly reduces the possibility of trying
other approaches. The first step is thus to update it to be a
first-class component like all others in cocoon.xconf. This was done
just today (see my commit this morning).
Also, sitemap.xsl is a wonderful demonstration of what can be done in
XSLT for generating code. I was really impressed when I discovered both
the power of the sitemap langage and the way it is implemented. But it
requires strong XSLT knowledge to anybody wanting to extend it. This
again restricts the possible experiments on new approaches. Having
sitemap logicsheets would have allowed this a bit, but you told once
this wasn't encouraged even if the program generator infrastructure
supports it.
All this to say that the interpreted sitemap can be considered as a
starting point for the implemention of others ways of processing
requests. And since it's now pluggable through cocoon.xconf, it can
smoothly co-exist with the current compiled sitemap.
Sylvain.
> > The problem is different for XSP : the language contains primitives such
> > as <xsp:page language="xxx">, <xsp:logic>, <xsp:expr>, etc, which are
> > inherently related to the notion of programming language. I use the same
> > approach as yours for logicsheets (static methods), which along with
> > XSP-code size reduction, eases debugging a lot !
> >
> > There has been recently some long threads about alternatives to XSP,
> > mostly based on introspection transformers (see also x:forge at
> > opensource.bibop.it). Those may be easier to use than XSP (I wish java
> > had a #LINE directive like good old C compilers to set line numbers in
> > the generated class files !), but could hardly be as fast because of the
> > use of introspection.
>
> Yes, even for XSP I think new approaches will be better than rewrites.
> You know, code-to-java production was very popular those days but as
> with Cocoon 1.x vs. Cocoon 2.x (or better DOM vs. SAX) practice let you
> learn new lessons.
>
> Giacomo
>
> >
> > > I have been enjoying the recent RT threads though. I do appreciate that
> > > such discussions take place out in the openness of the dev list. Of course
> > > that is what makes open source software so great :)
> >
> > Same here, even if time available for OSS isn't as big as I would like
> > it to be :(
> >
> > Sylvain
> >
> > > keep hacking.
> > > -pete
> > >
> > > --
> > > peter royal -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > managing partners, inc. -> http://www.managingpartners.com
> > >
--
Sylvain Wallez
Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
