You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net> on 2002/02/07 22:46:14 UTC
Java Compiler, Re: [vote] move tree-processor in the main trunk
All,
Is there any interest in integrating Cocoon with pizza Java Compiler?
http://pizzacompiler.sourceforge.net
My observations about it so far are:
1. Compiled byte code is almost identical to Sun's compiler output.
2. It is 450 Kb in size, comparing with 4.7Mb of javac.
3. Startup time is faster (because of size difference?).
4. Compilation time is ~ same or little bit faster.
5. It goes under "Artistic License" - same as jstyle.
Vadim
> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:bloritsch@apache.org]
>
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
<snip/>
> > Do not forget: XSP requires it. Is there any other stable java
compiler
> > around (fileless)?
>
> There is absolutely no java compiler that does not require the
filesystem.
> It is a major bummer, but there is little we can do. Jikes is much
faster
> than javac, so I would encourage its use if the site needs to squeeze
a
> bit more speed out.
>
>
> --
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> - Benjamin Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: Java Compiler, Re: [vote] move tree-processor in the main trunk
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
> From: Sylvain Wallez [mailto:sylvain.wallez@anyware-tech.com]
>
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> >All,
> >
> >Is there any interest in integrating Cocoon with pizza Java Compiler?
> >http://pizzacompiler.sourceforge.net
> >
> >My observations about it so far are:
> >1. Compiled byte code is almost identical to Sun's compiler output.
> >2. It is 450 Kb in size, comparing with 4.7Mb of javac.
> >3. Startup time is faster (because of size difference?).
> >4. Compilation time is ~ same or little bit faster.
> >5. It goes under "Artistic License" - same as jstyle.
> >
> >Vadim
> >
> Cool !
>
> Do you know if it has the features that would make it a javac-killer
> from the Cocoon point of view (in importance order) :
> - use the current classloader instead of a file-only classpath,
> - equivalent to #line in C to allow source-level debugging of XSPs,
> - file-less compilation (take an InputStream and return bytecode as a
> byte[])
I do not see any killer features in it, except for the small size (==
small footprint). On the site, they mentioned couple of interesting
points:
1. Compile time could be (up to) twice less comparing with javac,
2. Execution time could be (up to) 20% more (javac features better
optimization).
So, now I see it as an laternative for those seeking generics and stuff,
and for "embedded" folks ;)
Vadim
>
> Sylvain
>
> --
> Sylvain Wallez
> Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Java Compiler, Re: [vote] move tree-processor in the main trunk
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@anyware-tech.com>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>All,
>
>Is there any interest in integrating Cocoon with pizza Java Compiler?
>http://pizzacompiler.sourceforge.net
>
>My observations about it so far are:
>1. Compiled byte code is almost identical to Sun's compiler output.
>2. It is 450 Kb in size, comparing with 4.7Mb of javac.
>3. Startup time is faster (because of size difference?).
>4. Compilation time is ~ same or little bit faster.
>5. It goes under "Artistic License" - same as jstyle.
>
>Vadim
>
Cool !
Do you know if it has the features that would make it a javac-killer
from the Cocoon point of view (in importance order) :
- use the current classloader instead of a file-only classpath,
- equivalent to #line in C to allow source-level debugging of XSPs,
- file-less compilation (take an InputStream and return bytecode as a
byte[])
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez
Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: Java Compiler, Re: [vote] move tree-processor in the main trunk
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
> From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:stefano@apache.org]
>
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Is there any interest in integrating Cocoon with pizza Java
Compiler?
> > http://pizzacompiler.sourceforge.net
> >
> > My observations about it so far are:
> > 1. Compiled byte code is almost identical to Sun's compiler output.
> > 2. It is 450 Kb in size, comparing with 4.7Mb of javac.
> > 3. Startup time is faster (because of size difference?).
> > 4. Compilation time is ~ same or little bit faster.
> > 5. It goes under "Artistic License" - same as jstyle.
>
> Uh, cool.
>
> What about making it configurable at build time?
>
> ./build.sh -dbuild.compiler=pizza
They even ship distribution with the ant task. Anybody wants to try?
Vadim
>
> --
> Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
> able to give birth to a dancing star.
> <st...@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Java Compiler, Re: [vote] move tree-processor in the main trunk
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Is there any interest in integrating Cocoon with pizza Java Compiler?
> http://pizzacompiler.sourceforge.net
>
> My observations about it so far are:
> 1. Compiled byte code is almost identical to Sun's compiler output.
> 2. It is 450 Kb in size, comparing with 4.7Mb of javac.
> 3. Startup time is faster (because of size difference?).
> 4. Compilation time is ~ same or little bit faster.
> 5. It goes under "Artistic License" - same as jstyle.
Uh, cool.
What about making it configurable at build time?
./build.sh -dbuild.compiler=pizza
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: Java Compiler, Re: [vote] move tree-processor in the main trunk
Posted by Gerhard Froehlich <g-...@gmx.de>.
Vadim,
>Is there any interest in integrating Cocoon with pizza Java Compiler?
>http://pizzacompiler.sourceforge.net
Never heared of that...
>My observations about it so far are:
>1. Compiled byte code is almost identical to Sun's compiler output.
>2. It is 450 Kb in size, comparing with 4.7Mb of javac.
That's an argument...
>3. Startup time is faster (because of size difference?).
Again a good argument...
>4. Compilation time is ~ same or little bit faster.
>5. It goes under "Artistic License" - same as jstyle.
Honestly I didn't made any expierences with that compiler. But
+1 for integrating him and see how it behaves. I know try and
error is not always best...
~Gerhard
"Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org