Screenshot instructions:
Windows
Mac
Red Hat Linux
Ubuntu
Click URL instructions:
Right-click on ad, choose "Copy Link", then paste here →
(This may not be possible with some types of ads)
You can subscribe to this list here.
2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(42) |
Jul
(80) |
Aug
(77) |
Sep
(97) |
Oct
(65) |
Nov
(80) |
Dec
(39) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2003 |
Jan
(63) |
Feb
(47) |
Mar
(45) |
Apr
(63) |
May
(67) |
Jun
(51) |
Jul
(78) |
Aug
(37) |
Sep
(45) |
Oct
(59) |
Nov
(50) |
Dec
(70) |
2004 |
Jan
(23) |
Feb
(90) |
Mar
(37) |
Apr
(53) |
May
(111) |
Jun
(71) |
Jul
(35) |
Aug
(58) |
Sep
(35) |
Oct
(35) |
Nov
(35) |
Dec
(20) |
2005 |
Jan
(51) |
Feb
(19) |
Mar
(20) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(26) |
Jun
(14) |
Jul
(49) |
Aug
(24) |
Sep
(20) |
Oct
(49) |
Nov
(17) |
Dec
(53) |
2006 |
Jan
(12) |
Feb
(26) |
Mar
(45) |
Apr
(19) |
May
(19) |
Jun
(13) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(16) |
Nov
(17) |
Dec
(13) |
2007 |
Jan
(9) |
Feb
(12) |
Mar
(28) |
Apr
(33) |
May
(12) |
Jun
(12) |
Jul
(19) |
Aug
(4) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(5) |
Dec
(13) |
2008 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(7) |
Mar
(14) |
Apr
(16) |
May
(3) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(12) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(9) |
2009 |
Jan
(9) |
Feb
|
Mar
(10) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
(6) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(7) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(15) |
Dec
(1) |
2010 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(9) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(5) |
Aug
|
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
(3) |
Mar
|
Apr
(28) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(3) |
Aug
(4) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
|
Nov
(8) |
Dec
|
2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(2) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2013 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2014 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2015 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
(4) |
9
(5) |
10
(4) |
11
(11) |
12
(1) |
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
(9) |
17
(17) |
18
(7) |
19
(1) |
20
(10) |
21
(1) |
22
|
23
(2) |
24
(5) |
25
(7) |
26
(6) |
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: <hniksic@xe...> - 2004-02-18 22:43:01
|
Philip S Tellis <philip.tellis@...> writes: > Sometime on Feb 18, Hrvoje Niksic assembled some asciibets to say: > >> Allow me to announce the availability of a Java implementation of >> HTML::Template. The home page is at: >> >> http://htmltemplate.inet.hr/ > > Uh, there already was a java version of html template at > http://html-tmpl-java.sourceforge.net/ > > why start a new project? It's not new and, more importantly, it didn't start out as a fork. When I started writing Free Htmltemplate in 2002, I wasn't originally aware of your version. I even announced a release back in 2002: http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/23294/2002/10/0/9958609/ Later I did come across your HTML.Template, but I found that I preferred some of the design and implementation choices I've made. I'll list some examples that convinced me to stick with a separate implementation: * HTML.Template didn't seem to offer a caching facility. One of the strong points of Free Htmltemplate is the ability to request transparent caching of compiled templates (including optimizations like blind cache), but also to simply retrieve the CompiledTemplate object and use it later. * Free Htmltemplate is written with multithreaded environment in mind from the start. For example, the transparent caching code is careful to synchronize accesses to its data structures, while making sure that synchronization doesn't degrade into serialization through long-standing locks. * I had different ideas of what the translation of HTML::Template's API to Java should look like. For example, I don't have methods that accept Object[] arguments that closely follow Perl's subroutine call model. The Free Htmltemplate approach seems more "Java-like" to me, while retaining the spirit of the original API. This is surely deep in the realms of personal taste, but I invite you to take a look and judge for yourself. * I used the new API's such as Collections, Iterators, etc. and did not want to revert to Hashtables, Vectors, and Enumerations. This is a matter of taste as well. * My simple-minded benchmarks showed that my implementation was faster. This might simple be a consequence of the caching. None of this is meant as an argument that my program is in any way "better" than yours, just as an explanation of why I didn't just pick up your version when I became aware of it. |
From: <hniksic@xe...> - 2004-02-18 21:58:09
|
Sam Tregar <sam@...> writes: > If I wanted to run some benchmarks with your code what JVM should I > use? Simply use the latest revision of Sun's 1.4.x. That's what I use. |
From: Sam Tregar <sam@tr...> - 2004-02-18 21:52:52
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, [iso-8859-2] Hrvoje Nik?i? wrote: > Good point, I really should back up such a claim with numbers. I > originally didn't go out of my way to make Htmltemplate very fast, I > simply coded it the "obvious" way. But then I did some benchmarks > and, to my surprise, found it to be a good deal faster than I > expected. The benchmark was admittedly *very* simple-minded: take a > template, compile it once, and run the template transformation over > and over to see how many transformations per second I can squeeze. What kind of complexity did you put into your test template? I've found that deep loops with plenty of IF/ELSE logic are a good way to stress HTML::Template. > The code generated by HTML::Template::JIT still contains calls to > Perl's library and object system, doesn't it? To me that's quite > different from typical hand-written C code, which I'd expect to always > beat Java by a wide margin. It makes a few, mostly to get param values from SVs, but it makes a lot fewer than you might imagine. The template text itself and all the branching and looping logic is compiled into pure C code. > How do you benchmark HTML::Template::JIT? I can try to repeat the > same benchmark with Free Htmltemplate to see if I still get the > speedup I got when I last compared them. I use a script called benchmark.pl in the scripts/ directory of the HTML::Template::JIT distribution. It uses Benchmark.pm in a fairly standard fashion. If I wanted to run some benchmarks with your code what JVM should I use? I think I have some version of Sun's 1.4 JRE installed but I seem to remember something about it not being very fast. -sam |
From: Philip S Tellis <philip.tellis@gm...> - 2004-02-18 21:20:33
|
Sometime on Feb 18, Hrvoje Niksic assembled some asciibets to say: > Allow me to announce the availability of a Java implementation of > HTML::Template. The home page is at: > > http://htmltemplate.inet.hr/ Uh, there already was a java version of html template at http://html-tmpl-java.sourceforge.net/ why start a new project? Philip -- All men know the utility of useful things; but they do not know the utility of futility. -- Chuang-tzu |
From: <hniksic@xe...> - 2004-02-18 21:05:08
|
Sam Tregar <sam@...> writes: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: > >> Allow me to announce the availability of a Java implementation of >> HTML::Template. The home page is at: >> >> http://htmltemplate.inet.hr/ > > Wow, great work! I love the website and your excellent > documentation. Thanks! > I do, however, have a bone to pick. You claim your system is much > faster than HTML::Template and HTML::Template::JIT: > > Free htmltemplate is significantly faster than HTML::Template in > rendering pre-compiled templates. Even with the JIT in place, > which according to Sam speeds up template rendering by a factor > of 4 to 8, htmltemplate might still be as fast or faster. > > Can you back this up with numbers? Good point, I really should back up such a claim with numbers. I originally didn't go out of my way to make Htmltemplate very fast, I simply coded it the "obvious" way. But then I did some benchmarks and, to my surprise, found it to be a good deal faster than I expected. The benchmark was admittedly *very* simple-minded: take a template, compile it once, and run the template transformation over and over to see how many transformations per second I can squeeze. The result was astounding 3000 renderings per second, which was totally beyond my expectations. I first thought that I did something wrong, that the code wasn't even running, but adding the output showed that I was indeed producing the intended output 3000 times in a row in about 1 second. If my memory serves me, the same kind of benchmark showed HTML::Template performing about 300 renderings per second. The reasoning that follows is summed up by the above paragraph: if JIT speeds up HTML::Template 8 times, Htmltemplate might still be faster. But I really haven't checked it. I guess I should reword that paragraph to make it clear that it's based on speculation and not on actual measurements of HTML::Template::JIT's performance. > Java has improved a great deal, granted, but I'd be pretty shocked > if it could beat the highly-optimized C code generated by > HTML::Template::JIT. The code generated by HTML::Template::JIT still contains calls to Perl's library and object system, doesn't it? To me that's quite different from typical hand-written C code, which I'd expect to always beat Java by a wide margin. How do you benchmark HTML::Template::JIT? I can try to repeat the same benchmark with Free Htmltemplate to see if I still get the speedup I got when I last compared them. |
From: Sam Tregar <sam@tr...> - 2004-02-18 19:20:49
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: > Allow me to announce the availability of a Java implementation of > HTML::Template. The home page is at: > > http://htmltemplate.inet.hr/ Wow, great work! I love the website and your excellent documentation. Feel free to make announcements of new versions on the list. I do, however, have a bone to pick. You claim your system is much faster than HTML::Template and HTML::Template::JIT: Free htmltemplate is significantly faster than HTML::Template in rendering pre-compiled templates. Even with the JIT in place, which according to Sam speeds up template rendering by a factor of 4 to 8, htmltemplate might still be as fast or faster. Can you back this up with numbers? Java has improved a great deal, granted, but I'd be pretty shocked if it could beat the highly-optimized C code generated by HTML::Template::JIT. -sam |
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@xe...> - 2004-02-18 18:15:35
|
Allow me to announce the availability of a Java implementation of HTML::Template. The home page is at: http://htmltemplate.inet.hr/ I apologize in advance for the off-topicness of this announcement. Questions and discussion should be directed to me, unless they also concern HTML::Template. New versions will not be announced here, the only purpose of this announcement is to alert people to the existence of another HTML::Template implementation. If you are forced or prefer to work in Java and would like to use HTML::Template templates from your Servlets, this might be the thing for you: * Free Htmltemplate's API is designed to be familiar to users of HTML::Template, although the naming is more suited to Java. * The template syntax is intended to be 100% compatible with HTML::Template. Where differences exist, they are documented -- see http://htmltemplate.inet.hr/deviations.html . * Free Htmltemplate is currently licensed under the GNU GPL. If you like it and would like to use it in commercial projects, let me know and I'll consider changing the license to LGPL or to something BSD-like. Please note that Free Htmltemplate has nothing to do with the HTML.Template written by Philip Tellis, also in Java. |