Re: [PATCH] Re: [PROPOSAL] Modification of the code generated byJasper2

On Fri, 17 May 2002, Kin-Man Chung wrote: > I'll implement maximum tag nesting (though PageInfo) and you can work on > #1. Deal? Deal! Thanks! -- Denis Benoit [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PROPOSAL] Modification of the code generated byJasper2

> > Now, about the level of nesting, shouldn't the information be available > through the PageInfo object? After all, the purpose of this class is > "A repository for various info about the page under compilation". And > Generator currently has access to an instance of it. So, if PageInfo > h

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PROPOSAL] Modification of the code generated byJasper2

Mr Chung, I agree completely with your proposed change. Two arrays is all right for me. On Fri, 17 May 2002, Kin-Man Chung wrote: > This way, the size of the stack is the maximum number of nesting of the > tags, which should much smaller than the number of tags in the page. > Such information

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PROPOSAL] Modification of the code generated byJasper2

Denis, Glad that you agree. About the timing for the patch, I think now is OK. Jasper 2 is fairly stable and the only bug that may interact with our fix is 4964 and I already have a fix for it; but am hold off committing it because struts depends on this bug, and my fix would break it! :-( Now

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PROPOSAL] Modification of the code generated byJasper2

Mr Chung, You mentioned three areas where the code could be improved. On Thu, 16 May 2002, Kin-Man Chung wrote: > 1. I notice the following code pattern that is now generated. > > bitmask.set(1); > addTagToVector(tags, 1, new Integer(_jspx_eval_eg_foo_0)); > if (_jspx_e

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PROPOSAL] Modification of the code generated byJasper2

Denis, First let me mention a couple of improvements over the existing codes that was generated for flattening out the try/catch block. See if you agree with me. 1. I notice the following code pattern that is now generated. bitmask.set(1); addTagToVector(tags, 1, new Integer(_j

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PROPOSAL] Modification of the code generated byJasper2

Kim, On Thu, 9 May 2002, Kin-Man Chung wrote: > If we have distinct values for each state, theorectically we can implement > a state transition machine in the finallies. Something like the following. > > while (state > 0) { > switch (state) { > case 0: ... >

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PROPOSAL] Modification of the code generated byJasper2

See intermixed. > Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 20:48:27 -0400 (EDT) > From: Denis Benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [PROPOSAL] Modification of the code generated by Jasper2 > > Good idea, but I think it would be hard to accomplish as presented. Look again > at your pseudo-code:

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PROPOSAL] Modification of the code generated byJasper2

Mr Chung, On Thu, 9 May 2002, Kin-Man Chung wrote: > Denis, > > One way to get rid of BidSet is to keep the state of things that needs to > be done in the (now virtual) finally block. Since the try blocks are > properly nested, it is sufficient to increment the state when entering > a try bloc

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PROPOSAL] Modification of the code generated byJasper2

> Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 20:50:06 -0400 (EDT) > > Mr Maucherat noticed that the patch do create a BitSet and a Vector, even for > JSPs that don't have tags, I think it could be avoided if we did some kind of > lazy initialisation. My first, dumb, I confess! idea was to put the Vector > and the