On Oct 9, 1:38 pm, Hannes Wallnoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 9, 10:06 am, sleepnova <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 10月9日, 下午3時00分, Hannes Wallnoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 9, 8:25 am, sleepnova <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Is there any document about this? > > > > Not really. This was introduced with a small patch to make > > > JavaAdapters implementing org.mozilla.javascript.Scriptable be treated > > > as Scriptables (native JS objects) by Rhino. > > > >https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462827 > > > > This is a neat hack, but it has its perils, so while it's great for > > > prototyping, I recommend implementing host objects in Java (which is > > > what I do now in Helma NG). > > > So, you suggest to implement host object in Java instead of js. > > I am wondering if there is any plan to define an official way to > > implement host object in js. > > I think it would be great to have such extension so people can > > implement functionalities through uniform js abstraction. > > I'm not saying you shouldn't use this feature. It's just that there's > a price you pay for the simlicity you get. If you implement a host > object in JS using JavaAdapter, each object access goes through > Rhino's LiveConnect JS->Java method dispatch mechanism, which means
Sorry, it's not LiveConnect JS->Java, but JavaAdapter's Java->JS of course. It's all too confusing. ;) Hannes > far more overhead and less control (because of automatic argument and > return value conversion) than native host objects. > > But if it works for you there's no reason you shouldn't use it. > > Hannes _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino
