From: Raymond DeCampo on
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:40:48 +0200, "Robert Klemme" <bob.news(a)gmx.net>
> wrote or quoted :
>
>
>>Try using <jsp:include>
>
>
> Is JSP include just a macro text include? If so the size of the
> generated class file would be the same.

<jsp:include> is a dynamic, runtime include. <%@include> is a
macro-style, in-line, translation time include.

Ray

--
XML is the programmer's duct tape.
From: Wibble on
Raymond DeCampo wrote:
> Roedy Green wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:40:48 +0200, "Robert Klemme" <bob.news(a)gmx.net>
>> wrote or quoted :
>>
>>
>>> Try using <jsp:include>
>>
>>
>>
>> Is JSP include just a macro text include? If so the size of the
>> generated class file would be the same.
>
>
> <jsp:include> is a dynamic, runtime include. <%@include> is a
> macro-style, in-line, translation time include.
>
> Ray
>
Its not that uncommon to have to do this. It really
doesn't take that big a jsp to hit this limit. The really annoying
part is that its a runtime error.
From: Raymond DeCampo on
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:15:01 +0100, Thomas Hawtin
> <usenet(a)tackline.plus.com> wrote or quoted :
>
>
>>Now that's a step back from JSP.
>
>
> I am assuming he is generating the JSP. I find it hard to imagine
> anyone hand writing a single 64K java method.

It is really not hard to do that with JSP. All of the code in a JSP
that is not placed in a method via <%! %> tags is grouped into a single
JSP service method. Add in a healthy dose of tags and some static
imports and soon your file is too big. This is a common issue for
newbies to encounter with JSP.

> It then becomes not
> that big a difference sometimes to generate JSP, Java or byte code
> depending on just how regular what you are generating is.
>
> We have been dropping lots of hints, but OP does not seem willing to
> share what he is doing .

HTH,
Ray

--
XML is the programmer's duct tape.