Re: Re JBuilder

My experience and clasees do not support that assertion. My classes are smaller,
and my code operates faster as a result of more precision in the specification 
of
what I am using in the end product. Could be a Jbuilder quirk, but, I am looking
at 20 to 50% reductions in class size, as well as 15-40% improvements in load
times.

Cheers!
Marshall Dunbar wrote:

> > Depends on the version of Jbuilder. I have found Jbuilder 1.xx -- Pro to
> > 'bloat'
> > the code. However, using the Sun JDK instead I get much better performing
>
> > code. I
> > also reduce the number of potential problems by removing Jbuilder from
> the
> > 'mix'.
> > Look at your imports. Try to only import what you need. Instead of import
> > java.io.* use  import java.io.DataStream.*. I realize the IDE is
> > wonderful, but,
> > we aren't getting to the 'write once, run anywhere' goal with Jbuilder.
> Changing the import statement as you suggest will have no effect on the
> compiled class file.  The "import" is simply a compiler directive that
> limits the set of classes it looks for when attempting to resolve names.  A
> more fully qualified import will help the compiler generate your code a bit
> faster, but the resulting class will not be any smaller or faster.
>
> Marshall Dunbar
> DPS, Inc.
> Co-Author of the Redbook _Accessing the AS/400 System with Java_
>
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to JAVA400-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to JAVA400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to JAVA400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
> +---

begin:          vcard
fn:             Phil Jordan
n:              Jordan;Phil
org:            VIP Ltd., Inc.
email;internet: pjordan@vip-ltd.com
title:          916 638 7577 x-325
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard