Tom Reilly wrote:
>
> I don't buy this waste of space issue. The only thing that needs to
> stay on disk is the .jsp file, the .java, .class, and other temporary
> files can all be blown away if space is that precious. Furthermore, a
> deployed app doesn't even need the .jsp files, a compressed jar of the
> .class files will do fine and should take up less space than the the
> source files (jsp or template) and no compiler is needed (an important
> feature of JSP this article failed to mention).
Well, I should have been more clear about this. I agree that the disk
space is not a big deal. My main concern is memory consumption. Someone
else pointed out that memory is still fairly cheap, but in general I dislike
an architecture where things can never be unloaded from memory.
This is largely an implementation issue, not a problem with the design
of JSP. It is still something that affects peoples' decision to adopt
JSP or not, IMO.
--
Ethan Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Java Evangelist, KL Group http://www.klg.com
"Software Development Productivity"
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe: mailto [EMAIL PROTECTED] with body: "signoff JSP-INTEREST".
FAQs on JSP can be found at:
http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/faq.html
http://www.esperanto.org.nz/jsp/jspfaq.html
