ahh but we use: Function f = cx.compileFunction(scope, source.toString(), sp.getDataProviderID(), 1, null);
as you can see there there is a scope and that gives us a compiled function class with a scope. I will see if we can work with just Script objects problem is that we use Function objects everywhere in our code. not Scripts. johan On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 15:53, Attila Szegedi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008.12.10., at 15:15, Johan Compagner wrote: > > hmm >> >> i now checked a compiled script what kind of properties it have. >> First problem that i see is that it has a parentScopeObject that is the >> scope that it used to compile against >> > > Neither Context.compileScript() nor Context.compileReader take a scope > parameter; and Rhino doesn't conjure them from thin air when compiling a > script, so there's no such thing as a "scope to compile against". > Compilation is independent of any scope. > > Problem is that that is a scope really specific to one client. >> >> So it really shouldnt hold on to that one. I can try to set that one to >> null i guess. >> >> besides that it also has the prototype object. And that prototype object >> doesnt have really stuff from our own code >> > > Well, Script itself doesn't need to be a Scriptable, so again, why would it > need a prototype? > Actually, it *can* be a Scriptable too -- interpreted scripts are in fact > instances of InterpretedFunction, but that's an implementation detail. > During the course of execution (within Script.execute()) you can't obtain a > reference to the Script object itself, so the JS code can't affect its state > in any way (and Rhino runtime also most certainly won't). > > Also, note I mentioned interpreted scripts above -- I don't know what are > compiled Script compiled into -- maybe they too implement Function and or > Scriptable, but I'd be inclined to believe this is solely an implementation > artifact -- Scripts are really not much different from being a top-level > anonymous function, so using the same Java class to represent them as is > used to represent functionscan be justifiied. > > Again, I'd like to hear Norris' opinion, but I just can't imagine Script > objects to have shared mutable state. > > > Attila. > > -- > home: http://www.szegedi.org > twitter: http://twitter.com/szegedi > weblog: http://constc.blogspot.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino
