answer inline...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Gaston Alvarez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 1:51 PM
>
> I don't know if I really understood. You (some) are thinking
> to compile a
> jsp using xslt. I didnt know that that was possible. I mean, can a jsp be
> loaded as a dom object? I think that it cannot because a nice guy
> can write
> some code like <% out.writeln("</html>"); %> and that is, it is
> not more xml
> compliant. (please tellme if I am wrong).
Nops. The XSLT would just be the way to implement code templates for
the java code generation step of compiling a JSP.
(And the "nice guy" thing would not be a problem it was the other
way since that text could be encoded to become valid XML.)
> If the problem is the compilation time I can hardly believe
> that we can
> do something faster that a java compiler. Not because we dont have the
> skill, but because there are groups working in this kind of
> implementations.
> We should be blindly proud to think out compiler would be faster than
> theirs. Also, I consider that a waste of time.
Nothing like that. But Java Bytecode generation would probably be faster,
not because we would be able to make the most performant compiler in the
world, but because a lot of I/O operations would be saved (writing the java
code, calling/loading the compiler, the compiler producing the output
class file, loading the class file from disk).
> Let me do some guessing. I know, I should be reading the code, but I
> have been realy overloaded for the last months. Lets see if I have
> understood the problem.
Welcome to the club. But it helps if you follow the list.
> Saving a file for compilation is slow. So we need a faster solution.
> But, why is it slow?
> It sounds like we are saving the .java in file and then invoking a
> javacc process. The new process needs loads the compiler classes, compiles
> them (?) and then compiles our .java source.
About right.
> If we could have the compiler just loaded on our own memory space, we
> could invoke it saving the loading compiling (?) time. We could also send
> the .java 'file' in memory and expect the .class 'file' also in memory.
That is not a new idea. Just not possible - there is no such functionality
on the Java compiler.
> Yes, may be we need some modifications in the compiler, but as part of
> the apache project we are at a good position for asking it an
> having a good
> answer.
Costin complained about that in this list not long ago.
> Chau,
>
> Gaston
>
> ps: sorry for doing so much guessing but next month I will have much more
> time.
> ps
I also hope for that and it never happens.
=;o)
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
