Geir wrote, >Not only that, we create a class library that places **weird** requirements >on any VM that wants to use it.
Ok, I believe this was honest. :-) As far as I know the optimization Mikhail is talking about is nearly standard for any optimizing JIT. Isn't it just a simple inlining? I accept that inlining in Java is a bit more complex, than in C, since you can load classes and redefine methods on fly. Anyway optimizing JIT recompiles the whole thing when such event happens and an appropriate callback is called. With best regards, Alexei Fedotov, Intel Java & XML Engineering >-----Original Message----- >From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:29 PM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: Re: [classlib] Preprocessor (was Re: [classlib][rmi] Code smell - >Thread.sleep() in ActivationGroup method) > > > >Alexei Zakharov wrote: >> 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). > >Not only that, we create a class library that places weird requirements >on any VM that wants to use it. No thanks. > > > At the same time I don't feel >> completely comfortable with the idea of using preprocessor to separate >> J2SE sources from J2ME. > >I'm not overjoyed either, but I can't think of many ways that allow >fairly clear readability without don't require tons of IDE-specific >tooling. This is what bothers me about aspects - can you get a real >clue what's going to happen looking at the source code? > >geir > >> >> No clue about particular technology. It can be SableCC, something >> custom-made, velocity or whatever. >> >> Thanks, >> >> 2006/10/30, Fedotov, Alexei A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:56 PM >>> >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >Subject: Re: [classlib] Preprocessor (was Re: [classlib][rmi] Code >>> smell - >>> >Thread.sleep() in ActivationGroup method) >>> > >>> >On 10/29/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. >> >>
