Re: [report] Classloading problems between Catalina and Cocoon
+1 There's no reason going from .java to a Class object should be any harder than going from .class to a Class object. If the compiler used ClassLoader's instead of manually reading .class files in through the file system, fast in-memory compilation becomes a possibility (and your runtime classpath becomes the same as your compiler classpath). That said, I think javac is never going to be this compiler, at least not any time soon. They just re-wrote it and I doubt they'll do it again. A more mobile open source project like KJC is probably more realistic. "Pier P. Fumagalli" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 2/15/01 10:12 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: today's java compilation technology stinks! Or rather, the method of accessing today's Java compiler stinks. Nono, the whole technology stinks. To include Java classes JAVAC doesn't rely on the classloader, but on single File objects, and that causes problems when compiling stuff like JSP... Pier and I started talking about a JSR for Java Compilation API months ago and I even wrote a JSR-ignition document but the 'javac' team sucked it, well, I don't know anything about it. I'll check up on this. We were talking with Bill Maddox, and apparently, he left Sun for Transmeta without saying anything. That's why the whole discussion went down the drain. Just a FYI.. Pier -- Tom Reilly Allaire Corp. http://www.allaire.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WML Generation from JSP broken!!!!
Works for me. Every mime-type usually lays claim to a default suffix or two and we should definitely pick one and say that there is an implicit mapping for that prefix. So if I name my pages jspx then I don't have to worry about setting any mappings to get a JSP container to interpret the page as a JSP page written in XML. We should also do this for regular old JSP itself. So here's my proposal: JSP 1.2 engines have mime type mappings like so (or something like this): *.jsp - application/jsp *.jspx - application/jsp-xml And documents of type application/jsp and application/jspx (or whatever names we decide on) are handled appropriately by default without any special web.xml constructs. This will also enable one to author a mime-type based servlet filter that can operate on JSP pages in a standard way. Miles Sabin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Reilly wrote, It seems to me there are a couple solutions: 1) look for jsp:root 2) use DOCTYPE 3) based it on file extension I don't like 1 because it adds overhead to the translation process, and you have to deal with cases like: %-- jsp:root --% I don't like 2 because if your JSP page is generating XML and you want to output a DOCTYPE then you have a collision. So that leaves 3 which I like the best. A good standard default would be "jspx". Of course most app servers allow this to be customized. I also like this because then different filters can be assigned to JSP pages written in XML and plain old JSP pages. Yes and no. I agree that it'd be a mistake to handle this by inspecting the contents of the document, but I don't think file extensions are quite the right way to go. We should do it based on MIME type, and allow servers to use their existing file extension to MIME type mapping mechanisms to do the rest. What is the mime type for an XML-syntax JSP doc? application/jsp+xml or text/jsp+xml would seem to be the most likely candidates ... presumably they'd need to be registered. Cheers, Miles -- Miles Sabin InterX Internet Systems Architect5/6 Glenthorne Mews +44 (0)20 8817 4030 London, W6 0LJ, England [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.interx.com/ -- Tom Reilly Allaire Corp. http://www.allaire.com
Re: WML Generation from JSP broken!!!!
It seems to me there are a couple solutions: 1) look for jsp:root 2) use DOCTYPE 3) based it on file extension I don't like 1 because it adds overhead to the translation process, and you have to deal with cases like: %-- jsp:root --% I don't like 2 because if your JSP page is generating XML and you want to output a DOCTYPE then you have a collision. So that leaves 3 which I like the best. A good standard default would be "jspx". Of course most app servers allow this to be customized. I also like this because then different filters can be assigned to JSP pages written in XML and plain old JSP pages. Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Danno Ferrin wrote: I am sorry to start this thread here, but I believe that jasper-4.0's behavior is in error. The behavior I think the spec calls for in determining if a page is a JSP Document (xml jsp) or an XMl document with JSP markup is the presence or absence of a jsp:root element. [...] I agree. JSP 1.1 says that everything that's not a JSP element is treated as template text, and that any type of markup (text) language can be used as template text. This means that a pure XML document, with an ?xml version="1.0? element at the top, is a valid JSP page using the JSP 1.1 syntax. The best (only?) way to identify a page that uses the JSP 1.2 XML syntax is what you suggest: look for a jsp:root element. This should be clarified in the JSP 1.2 spec. Hans -- Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com -- Tom Reilly Allaire Corp. http://www.allaire.com
