I wouldn't jump straight to a bytecode solution, there's no reason it should be that much faster than a well-designed plain Java solution.
Bob On 12/13/06, Jessek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Last time I'll interrupt your normal dev cycle I promise. Since it seems we are both equally screwed in the short term by any non ognl solution it might be beneficial to consider just fixing it. I'm very familiar with javassist bytecode manipulation and vaguely familiar with the internal workings of ognl. It doesn't seem like it would be extremely hard to do. If it didn't look like my time/efforts would be wasted/ignored I might be willing to collaborate with whoever is interested (and able to commit to ognl) on finding a workable solution. Ted Husted-3 wrote: > > On 12/13/06, Ian Roughley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Do you have the performance numbers that you can share? I'd really be >> interested in them. > > There are some interesting numbers here > > * > http://javajmc.blogspot.com/2006/10/webwork-and-stripes-simple-performance.html > > (be sure to read to the *end* of the commnets). > > We might want to come up with a set of test pages that thorougly > exercise the core tags, so that we can run our own direct comparisons > of S1, S2, et al. > > Of course, the peformance is the still same as WebWork 2, which is > driving some serious applications. We also know exactly where lies the > bottleneck. We need to fix or replace OGNL. > > -Ted. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/OGNL-performance-detrimental-to-Struts-2-tf2804655.html#a7856772 Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
