Re: Re: Re: Re: ASM 4 is ready ?

On 01/08/2011 04:28 PM, Eric Bruneton wrote:
> 08/01/2011 13:56, Rémi Forax wrote:
>> I think renaming MHandle to MethodHandle ( resp.M.Type to MethodType)
>> was a bad idea.
>> I mostly use ASM at runtime e.g. in a world where java.dyn.MethodHandle
>> exists,
>> you can see an example in my last blog post
>> (http://weblogs.java.net/blog/forax/archive/2011/01/07/call-invokedynamic-java) 
>>
>
> but is it or will it be a common usage pattern? For me, in the most 
> common cases, code using ASM, like dynamic language compilers, is a 
> kind of "meta code" using "quoted" values, e.g. class names instead of 
> Class objects, quite distinct from the "user" or "base level" or "ASM 
> generated" code using the real values. So it should not be a problem 
> if "quoted" and "real" concepts are represented with classes having 
> the same names in different packages (again, in most common cases).

invokedynamic blurs this difference.
By example, If you have a script to execute, you can first compile only 
the main entry point,
and use invokedynamic to resolve unkown method. You will lazily compile 
the other methods
when needed, e.g. when the function will be called.
In fact, this is a common pattern, all Java VMs works like that.

>
>> PHP.reboot has a ahead of time generator that generates such classes .
>> I will update it to use the latest revision and send you instructions
>> explaining how to generate such classes.
>
> ok, thanks
>
> Eric

Rémi

-- 
You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]
For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help
OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws