On Thursday, Nov 21, 2002, at 21:58 Asia/Shanghai, Richard Kunze wrote:
Sure it does, and coolness definitely *is* a reason :-)
coolness is THE 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.
That's true. BCEL or other similar tool are harder to use. Maybe
someone should come up with tool to generated "pseudo assembly" in
these tools from a compiled class files. That could be useful.
David
| 