Re: Thought on future of XMLC

On Thursday 21 November 2002 14:32, David Li wrote:
> >> I am using BCEL to support loading of uncompiled new files and it's
> >> getting close to working now. I have to rewrite much of the
> >> ClassGenerator in term of BCEL, thu.
> >
> > Hmmm - I did the same once using a more "traditional" approach -
> > generate a Java file, run javac/jikes on it and then do a Class.forName()
> > (basically, call the existing XMLC from a running application). Works
> > pretty well and does not require changing XMLC. Of course, using BCEL
> > eliminates the need for having .java and .class files in the fielsystem at
> > all, but is this really that much of a benefit?
>
> Well... It sounds cool? ;)

Sure it does, and coolness definitely *is* a reason :-)

> I think the approach is the same. However, eliminating the need for the
> filesystem could be a good thing, especially used in a products. Less
> supporting harsh.

Agreed. On the other hand, if I'm not mistaken then you need to build these 
dynamic classes "by hand" (similar to writing assembler code). Right now, I'm 
thinking of moving the whole XMLC code generation to a more template driven 
approach (makes it easier to customize/experiment with new features) - and 
this pretty much clashes with BCEL and similar lowlevel frameworks, because 
these would force you to write your templates in "assembler" instead of Java 
(or something very similar to Java). That's why I'm a bit reluctant to take 
that route.

Regards,

Richard
-- 
Richard Kunze 

[ t]ivano Software, Bahnhofstr. 18, 63263 Neu-Isenburg
Tel.: +49 6102 80 99 07 - 0, Fax.: +49 6102 80 99 07 - 1
http://www.tivano.de, kunze@xxxxxxxxx