Michael Hartle wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le Jeudi, 20 nov 2003, à 18:12 Europe/Zurich, Sylvain Wallez a écrit :
...Rhino also provides some very easy solutions to this:
- http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/tutorial.html#ImplementingInterfaces
- paragraph "JavaAdapter constructor" at http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/scriptjava.html
ok, cool, I wasn't aware of this, looks similar to what BeanShell does.
The advantage with BeanShell is that the syntax *is* java - one can prototype in script and later move the code to compilable classes (just FYI - I don't mean we should switch now ;-)
Sounds interesting. But you know the initial requirement for any flowscript language: continuations...
If I understood Bertrands hint towards BeanShell right, it would allow the people who are affraid of writing "real" Java code to script an object which is then used in the flowscript we have today - not replacing the current continuation language, but easing the transition for scripters towards Java for objects to be called from the flowscript.
And also the other way around: BeanShell would allow people who are reluctant to using server-side JS to use the familiar Java syntax. But once again, the first requirement is to have continuation support.
I think there still some misunderstanding; BeanShell does not provide continuations and is not suited for running as a flowscript language like the Rhino JS (with its continuation support) does - here we agree. But thats not the point of Bertrand, as beanShell can turn a script into a Java object which in turn can be used in a typical, today JS flowscript.
Instead of an object of a Java class Foo being hardcoded (and supposedly feared by hardcore scripters due to compilation/packaging requirements), it would result into something along the lines of
var foo = BeanShell.newObjectFromScript("myScriptedBusinessLogic.bs");
cocoon.setupObject(foo);
foo.doIt("blah");
showing the example in conjunction with your proposed extension to honour lifecycle interfaces. Or putting it the other way around, the previously shown
var foo = new Foo();
cocoon.setupObject(foo);
foo.doIt("blah");
Foo class written in Java certainly does not have any continuation-related extension - nor would the BeanShell-resulting object need it, or ?
Best regards,
Michael Hartle, Hartle & Klug Consulting GmbH
