Am 15.02.2011 18:02, schrieb John Rose: [...] >> We would in fact need a InstanceValue, > > This is hard, and probably amounts to a change-class operator. I > suppose you need this for arbitrary pre-existing objects from > non-cooperating classes?
yes >> but it will help already avoiding some big internal structures, >> that tend to cause problems. > > You mean the Class to metaclass mapping, right? This is the main > purpose (but not only purpose) for ClassValue. I mean the Class to per class metaclass mapping, yes.. But we think also of a Class to per instance metaclass mapping. Instead of having a direct value we would have another map in which we have the instances of that class that do have a per instance meta class. That is better than the system wide approach we have atm I think. >> As for performance... I think it can help here if the inlining >> really works. > > Yes. We can make inlining work "in the lab" right now, but the goal > is to make it work from the beginning in a customer application. especially it should be made work without needing to increase the inline cache sizes ;) bye Jochen -- Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou The Groovy Project Tech Lead http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy.codehaus.org _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
