What if we just add a <call-script/> element instead?
We could then replace all the <call-bsh /> element to the new one.
The new one will use the file suffix to use the proper Processor
(.groovy, .bsh etc...)
And we may add an optional parameter for the type ("groovy", "bsh"
etc... that can be used if the script files don't have the right
suffix).
For example
<call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.groovy"/>
<call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.bsh"/>
<call-script location="component://pathtoscript/mygroovyscript.grv"
type="groovy"/>
Jacopo
On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
+1 for adding <call-groovy> in minilang.
I can work on it in my free time as voluntarily if we would like to
include
it in framework release.
Please let me know your thoughts on it.
--
Ashish
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 for Confluence
BTW, should we not add a <call-groovy> in minilang (or did I miss
something) ?
Jacques
From: "David E Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Like Jacopo hinted at, this is a community-driven effort and is
therefore
a bit chaotic.
The main thing I was requesting from the community is to focus on
the
framework for a little while so we can stabilize and clean up the
framework in preparation for a binary release of it (leading
toward a good
binary release of the whole project... but starting with
something smaller
and easier).
Anyway, I do have a list of things I've been thinking about and
collecting, some from years ago. What I want to avoid though is
making my
list the official list, or even any sort of majority of the
official list.
In other words, I want this to be a community effort more than I
want to
have everything on my pet list done.
Still, I do like the idea of starting to compile a list of things
we'd
all like to see go into the framework, and it's probably about
time to do
that rather than having more random (less communicated) efforts on
different things.
I'm thinking that a confluence/wiki page might be a better place
for now
though, given the tentative nature of some of these things, and
often a
need for discussion before more concrete plans are made.
What do others think of this?
-David
On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-candidate-
release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because
there is no
official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes to go in the
framework... probably each of us has its own preferences.
Of course we should try to keep the list small.
Jacopo
On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
David,
I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list
of
what we
would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't
you?
It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts
on
these
tasks.
Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and
schedule for
that
the task-list ?
Thank you,
-Bruno
2008/6/20 David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added
to the
framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm
really happy
to
see it in!
-David
