On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:03 PM, David E Jones wrote:
I like the idea for simple-method. One thing to keep in mind is that
many scripts are included "in-line" under the current call-bsh tag
rather than referred to as a file, so we'll have to have the type
attribute that was mentioned, and we should probably have it default
to "groovy" (and also support "bsh" or something).
David, thanks for bringing this to our attention. This is a really
good point.
BTW, on a related note, I do NOT like the idea of supporting scripts
in-line in a screen's action area. It would clutter the screen
definition making it harder to read and maintain, and it would limit
reusability of the scripts.
Yes, I agree... I don't think anyone is working on this right now :-)
Jacopo
-David
On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:49 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
Jacopo,
Thanks for the clarification.
Let's see what other's has to say about it.
--
Ashish
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ashish,
yes, what I meant that we could implement the new Minilang
operation:
"call-script"
That operation could then be used to replace the existing "call-bsh"
operation (that could be deprecated) and also it will be used to
call Groovy
scripts.
Jacopo
On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
Jacopo I liked the idea while we include the script file in Screen
Definition.
But if you will notice Jacques was talking about the Mini Lang
call-bsh
replacement to call-groovy.
Please let me know your thoughts in reference to Mini Lang.
Thanks !
--
Ashish
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
