On 10月9日, 下午7時38分, Hannes Wallnoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 9, 10:06 am, sleepnova <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > 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
Thanks for clearly describe the details behind the scene. What I proposed is to define a pure js way to implement dynamic or lazy property binding jsObjects. Thus, people can create storeable or active directory binding objects with pure js simplicity and avoiding LiveConnect overhead. _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino
