On 7/18/07, Jochen Mader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yep, that's exactly what I proposed. > I know what you are doing now. But I'm not a big fan of code generators > for the reasons mentioned before (people start to modify generated code > instead of the code generator). > For me I like XSLT to verify content, I'm not a big fan of creating code > from XSLT. > I worked a lot wit webservices where you do that a lot and I don't like > it. > I think the place of XSLT is for verifying/validating XML. > For example to verify data that's being transmitted between two worlds > (e.g. C++ app talks to java app). > For me code generators always brought a lot of trouble. > But that's my opinion. > Cheers > Jochen >
I agree, code generators are always a 'design smell.' In some small part, it was that design smell that led me to the document-oriented approach exemplified by the Perl packages. I managed to avoid code generation entirely in the Perl implementation. But I don't think there's always a good alternative to code generation. How would you avoid code generation for C, C++, C#? Note that if I were to do the Perl code over again I think I would actually use a code-generation approach since the resulting code would be faster. I'd probably do it at runtime so no one would ever really know. But my point is that code generation is sometimes an optimization tactic. In any event, keep in mind that whatever strategy we use has to work for other languages besides Java. -- John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
