[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Possible MTJ Contribution
|
Hi again.
Now we have some Unit-Test for our processors and found a
bug in the example i posted. ;-)
In the inline Example the resulting expression should not be
int nonVoidMethodWithParameters_return =
>"nonVoidMethodWithParameters: \'" + 0 + "\', \'" + "nonVoid" + "\', \'"
>+ false + "\'";
It should be a String variable:
String nonVoidMethodWithParameters_return =
>"nonVoidMethodWithParameters: \'" + 0 + "\', \'" + "nonVoid" + "\', \'"
>+ false + "\'";
;-)
Any suggestion, what the next steps can be?
I think we should try to translate our overview-documents in english
language.
Kind regards
Sebastian
mika.hoikkala@xxxxxxxxx schrieb:
> Thanks,
>
> Looks good.
> I am now in San Francisco and a bit busy here, but we will come back to
> you quite soon.
>
> mho
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext
>> Sebastian Sickelmann
>> Sent: 14 August, 2006 21:42
>> To: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Possible MTJ Contribution
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I am glad that i now can tell you some news about our possible
>> MTJ-Contribution.
>> We will open-source some parts of our "Annocracy"-Project.
>> Annocracy uses Annotations to annotate the way of handling
>> code-fragmentation. Because we are using Annotations for that,
>> it is fully integrated in the Java-Language. We use
>> Eclipse-Technology (JDT-AST) to process source-files and to
>> create device-specific projects.
>> Annocracy is not bind
>> to Eclipse, it is build using an RCP-Enviroment and can so
>> acutally be started using commandline and RCP-RunConfiguration
>> out of Eclipse. In the next few weeks we will publish some
>> ANT-Tasks to integrate it easyly in every modern IDE.
>>
>> I will you now show some easy examples how Annocracy feels.
>>
>> Here some Easy-Method-Implementation-Change (it is a mock
>> example, but it shows the idea)
>>
>> @Implementations({
>>
>> @Implementation(dependsOn = "methodImplementationRule1",
>> implementationOwner = "doDestroyAppImpl1"),
>>
>> @Implementation(dependsOn = "methodImplementationRule2",
>> implementationOwner = "doDestroyAppImpl2")
>>
>> })
>>
>> private void doDestroyApp() {
>>
>> // TODO default implementation
>>
>> }
>>
>> @ImplementationOwner
>>
>> private void doDestroyAppImpl1() {
>>
>> System.out.println("destroying application in one way");
>>
>> }
>>
>> @ImplementationOwner
>>
>> private void doDestroyAppImpl2() {
>>
>> System.out.println("destroying application in another way");
>>
>> }
>>
>> In this example the implementation of the Method doDestroyApp
>> should be change be either the implementation of
>> doDestroyAppImpl1 or the impl. of doDestroyAppImpl2. It is
>> exchange by the implementation of Impl1 if
>> "methodImplementationRule1" is evaluated to true. The
>> Evaluation can be Device/Project or Build-Specific and is
>> managed by an external(plugable) Validator. The
>> Defaultvalidator uses XML Configsfiles to configure the way of
>> evaluation. Example:
>>
>> @Implementations({
>>
>> @Implementation(dependsOn = "CLCD1.0", implementationOwner
>> = "doDestroyAppImpl1"),
>>
>> @Implementation(dependsOn = "CLCD1.1", implementationOwner =
>> "doDestroyAppImpl2")
>>
>> })....
>>
>> If the Device that is actually building is an CLDC1.0-Device
>> the implementation is exchanged by Impl1.
>> If the Device that is acutally building is an CLCD1.1-Device
>> the implementation is exchanged by Impl2.
>> If the Device is not either an CLDC1.0 or 1.1 -Device the
>> Method implementation is unchanged.
>>
>> What CLDC and J2SE means is defined in an external
>> XML-Configuration(can be part of an set of Configurations).
>>
>>
>> <rule-definition id = "midp1.0">
>> <comparison device-property = "device.platform"
>> comparator = "==" value = "midp1.0" />
>> </rule-definition>
>>
>> <rule-definition id = "midp2.0">
>> <comparison device-property = "device.platform"
>> comparator = "==" value = "midp2.0" />
>> </rule-definition>
>>
>> <!-- configuration properties -->
>>
>> <rule-definition id = "cldc1.0">
>> <comparison device-property = "device.configuration"
>> comparator = "==" value = "cldc1.0" />
>> </rule-definition>
>>
>> <rule-definition id = "cldc1.1">
>> <comparison device-property = "device.configuration"
>> comparator = "==" value = "cldc1.1" />
>> </rule-definition>
>> ..and so on
>>
>>
>> The device-property are filled using multiple DataSources. We
>> will implement an DataSource accesing our web-service of
>> deviceknowledge-database. But using other
>> databases(j2mepolish,wurfl,other)
>> is just implementing an extension-Point in Annocracy. Is there
>> an deviceknowledge-project in MTJ or DSDP that we should integrate?
>>
>> Annotations have one drawback to comment-based preprocessors.
>> You cannot annotation some lines of code in an existing
>> Method. You have to extract the code to a Method and Annotate
>> your Method.
>> In my eyes it is no problem, because there is no example by
>> which i cannot find a name for the sourcecode -block(my new
>> Method). The only problem is that method-calls are exensive an
>> a method has an overhead around 100 Bytes in the resulting
>> Bytecode. So we implemented an additional @Inline annotation
>> that keeps track of it. @Inline is not just an code-copy. A
>> Simple code copy would bring namespace problems with it.
>> @Inline renames local names if it is needed.
>>
>> Example for @Inline:
>>
>> public class InlineTest {
>>
>> static {
>> staticMethod();
>> }
>>
>> public InlineTest() {
>> }
>>
>> public static void main(String[] args) {
>> InlineTest inlineTest = new InlineTest();
>> inlineTest.voidMethod();
>> inlineTest.voidMethodWithParameters(1, "void", true);
>> System.out.println(inlineTest.nonVoidMethod());
>> System.out.println(inlineTest.nonVoidMethodWithParameters(0,
>> "nonVoid", false));
>> int a;
>> int b;
>> int complexMethod_a;
>> int result = inlineTest.complexMethod();
>> int c;
>> staticMethod();
>> }
>>
>> @Inline
>> private void voidMethod() {
>> System.out.println("voidMethod");
>> }
>>
>> @Inline
>> private void voidMethodWithParameters(int i, String s, boolean b) {
>> System.out.println("voidMethodWithParameters: '" + i +
>> "', '" + s + "', '" + b + "'");
>> }
>>
>> @Inline
>> private String nonVoidMethod() {
>> return "nonVoidMethod";
>> }
>>
>> @Inline
>> private String nonVoidMethodWithParameters(int i, String
>> s, boolean b) {
>> return "nonVoidMethodWithParameters: '" + i + "', '" +
>> s + "', '" + b + "'";
>> }
>>
>> @Inline
>> private int complexMethod() {
>> int a = 1;
>> int b = 2;
>> System.out.println("complexMethod");
>> return Math.max(a, b);
>> }
>>
>> @Inline
>> private static void staticMethod() {
>> int c;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Will create this source.
>>
>> public class InlineTest {
>>
>> /**
>> * Modified by Annocracy: content of the method
>> 'staticMethod' was inlined here
>> */
>> static {
>> int c;
>> }
>>
>> public InlineTest() {
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> * Modified by Annocracy: content of the method
>> 'voidMethod' was inlined here
>> * Modified by Annocracy: content of the method
>> 'voidMethodWithParameters' was inlined here
>> * Modified by Annocracy: content of the method
>> 'nonVoidMethod' was inlined here
>> * Modified by Annocracy: content of the method
>> 'nonVoidMethodWithParameters' was inlined here
>> * Modified by Annocracy: content of the method
>> 'complexMethod' was inlined here
>> * Modified by Annocracy: content of the method
>> 'staticMethod' was inlined here
>> */
>> public static void main(String[] args) {
>> InlineTest inlineTest = new InlineTest();
>> System.out.println("voidMethod");
>> System.out.println("voidMethodWithParameters: \'" + 1
>> + "\', \'"
>> + "void" + "\', \'" + true + "\'");
>> int nonVoidMethod_return = "nonVoidMethod";
>> System.out.println(nonVoidMethod_return);
>> int nonVoidMethodWithParameters_return =
>> "nonVoidMethodWithParameters: \'" + 0 + "\', \'" + "nonVoid" + "\', \'"
>> + false + "\'";
>> System.out.println(nonVoidMethodWithParameters_return);
>> int a;
>> int b;
>> int complexMethod_a;
>> int inline_complexMethod_a = 1;
>> int complexMethod_b = 2;
>> System.out.println("complexMethod");
>> int complexMethod_return =
>> Math.max(inline_complexMethod_a, complexMethod_b);
>> int result = complexMethod_return;
>> int c;
>> int staticMethod_c;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Obfuscating and shrinking will delete the rest(see "int staticMethod_c"
>> Deklaration)
>>
>> Another example. This time the very usefull @Existence
>>
>> @Existence(dependsOn = "mp3")
>>
>> private void playSound() {
>>
>> // TODO play sound
>>
>> System.out.println("La la la!");
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>> private void doApplicationLogic{
>>
>> playSound();
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>> OK. The method playSound only exists wenn the rule "mp3" is
>> evalated to true. But what is with all(ok here it is only one)
>> its callers? Annocracy eliminates all calls to that Method.
>> Keeping track of everything you would manualy do. Example:
>>
>> @Existence(dependsOn = "mp3")
>>
>> private int calc() {
>>
>> return 42;
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>> private void doApplicationLogic{
>>
>> int a = calc();
>> a++;
>> System.out.println(a);
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>> will create an empty doApplicationLogic Method(when mp3 is not
>> available), because the variable Deklarations of "a" depends
>> on the result of calc. If you write:
>>
>> private void doApplicationLogic{
>>
>> int a = 0;
>> a = calc();
>> a++;
>> System.out.println(a);
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>> 43 is printed by "mp3 devices" and 1 is printed by non "mp3 devices".
>>
>>
>> Of course Annotations can be combined.
>>
>> This was only a small look. There is much more. But this
>> should not be part of on common discussion form.
>>
>> Hope to get some feedback.
>>
>> Kind regards and sorry for the long mail Sebastian
>>
>>
>> mika.hoikkala@xxxxxxxxx schrieb:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You get my curiosity up. When you think that you can publish
>>> information what you have.
>>> And if that takes time we are also interested in documentation which
>>> tells how it work (end user / use case perspective) if that
>>>
>> is easier
>>
>>> to deliver than code.
>>>
>>> Yes. Eclipse lisence is EPL and it would definitely be the best for
>>> your contribution also.
>>>
>>> Eclipse community is quite strict that it don't have any license
>>> problems in Eclipse projects.
>>>
>>> mho
>>>
>> <clear-thread />
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
>> dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
> dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
>
