I think the problem is that the Tapestry solution is simply a property accessor package, which doesn't really meet the needs of the established WebWork community which relies on "expressions" in addition to properties to accomplish tasks.
That being said, my project (MVEL) stands willing to step in and assist. I think it's performance and flexibility speak for itself: http://wiki.mvflex.org/index.php?title=MVFLEX_Expression_Language Jessek wrote: > > I'm still not getting all of the hand wringing that is going on in this > thread about ognl. There is what I think a perfectly reasonable solution > that will help finish up those last remaining bits that ognl needs to > really be production ready. > > Despite whatever we want to call it you could theoretically view it as > just another interpreter. I may be from an "enemy project" but I'm still > willing/able to make the changes necessary for this to work. > > I've tried on a few occasions to engage whoever I can in the ognl world to > make this possible but haven't gotten any good responses yet. This isn't a > hard problem to solve, so it's frustrating watching everyone implement new > property path interpreters /debate ognl when the answer is right there... > ;/ > > > Don Brown wrote: >> >> I wrote a simple Struts 2 TemplateEngine that renders tags in pure >> Java, as opposed to the Freemarker that is used currently. I'm seeing >> performance improvements between 3 and 4 times faster than the old >> tags. This engine is based on the design I layed out previously [1]. >> It is better suited to simple tag rendering where the Freemarker >> version is better suited for HTML-heavy tag output and customization. >> >> The Java engine: >> - Allows the tag generator and "interceptors" to deal with tag >> objects, not pure text >> - Tag "interceptors" or handlers have full control over the output >> - Serialization of tag objects into text can be customized >> - Is fast - 3 to 4 times faster than the Freemarker engine >> >> Anyways, if nothing else, it shows there are things we can do to >> drastically speed up the tags w/o throwing out OGNL. If you only use >> the simple theme, this might be an attractive option that gives you >> more customization and speed. >> >> I'm kinda up in the air as to where to put this. I'm leaning toward >> committing it to the sandbox as then it would be clear it is >> experimental, especially since not all tags and themes are >> implemented. >> >> Don >> >> [1] - http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@struts.apache.org/msg25065.html >> >> On 12/13/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Very interesting... I wonder how much of the performance hit was due to >>> Freemarker and how much OGNL. Could you package this application in a >>> war and attach it to a JIRA ticket? I'd love to have it for future >>> comparisons. >>> >>> Don >>> >>> dice wrote: >>> > They are my stats Ted. The stats are posted below along with my sample >>> JSP >>> > code. I only tried the textfield tag but looking at the ftl and vm >>> files for >>> > the other tags I can't see how the results would be any different. >>> > >>> > Perhaps an interim solution could be to remove the use of OGNL from >>> core >>> > functionality that doesn't require it. eg. Is it really necessary to >>> access >>> > UIBean attributes from the theme templates using OGNL? >>> > >>> > PS: I emulated the Struts 2 themes in Struts 1 by wrapping Struts 1 >>> tags in >>> > JSP Tag files and performance was still impressive. >>> > >>> > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > >>> > Technology - Hits per second with 1 user / 10 users: >>> > >>> > Struts 1 - 109 / 191 >>> > Stripes - 88 / 140 >>> > WW2/SAF2 with default FreeMarker templates - 12 / 7 >>> > WW2/SAF2 with Velocity templates - 22 / 15 >>> > JSF - 27 / 40 >>> > >>> > >>> > Sample JSP: >>> > >>> > <s:form action="/test.action" method="POST"> >>> > <s:textfield label="Label1" name="attribute1"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Label2" name="attribute2"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Label3" name="attribute3"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Label4" name="attribute4"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Label5" name="attribute5"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Label6" name="attribute6"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Label7" name="attribute7"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Label8" name="attribute8"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Label9" name="attribute9"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Nested Label1" >>> name="nestedBean.attribute1"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Nested Label2" >>> name="nestedBean.attribute2"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Nested Label3" >>> name="nestedBean.attribute3"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Nested Label4" >>> name="nestedBean.attribute4"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Nested Label5" >>> name="nestedBean.attribute5"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Nested Label6" >>> name="nestedBean.attribute6"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Nested Label7" >>> name="nestedBean.attribute7"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Nested Label8" >>> name="nestedBean.attribute8"/> >>> > <s:textfield label="Nested Label9" >>> name="nestedBean.attribute9"/> >>> > <s:submit/> >>> > </s:form> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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] >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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#a7940372 Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
