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

08/01/2011 16:46, Rémi Forax wrote:
> 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.

still, the compiler manipulates strings representing class/method/field 
names and types in the script, not the real objects?

Eric

-- 
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