first I was in holidays and the I missed this thread, sorry for the late reply.
I favor the variant with Apache Commons, I think this would allow as to do a release as soon as we're ready without having to bother about the scala process (obviously in the long run it should become just part of scala, but till then its perfectly feasible to have a separate osgi and scripting wrapper). The implementation in clerezza does cache precompiled scripts, but initial compiling is probably slower than it needs to be. What are the steps to create a commons-project? what would the project be commons-scala, commons-osgi or commons scripting? Reto On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Michael Dürig <michael.due...@day.com>wrote: > > Thanks Bertrand, for pointing this out. I'd see Apache Commons as a viable > place. Granting additional persons commit rights to the Scala scripting > engine in Sling seems more like an intermediate solution to me if we want to > make the script engine easily shareable across otherwise unrelated projects. > > Michael > > > On 4/26/10 5:55 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Michael Dürig<michael.due...@day.com> >> wrote: >> >>> ...I think it might be worthwhile to check whether we could move >>> the Scala scripting engine to the Scala incubator [3]. This would make it >>> much easier for non Sling committers (like me and Reto I suppose) to get >>> things done and to use the script engine. Furthermore the scripting >>> engine >>> would ultimately profit from contributions from users of different >>> backgrounds.... >>> >> >> Alternatives might be to move the scala engine to Apache Commons, or >> keep it in Sling but grant commit access to Apache commiiters (like >> yourself and Reto) willing to work on it. The Sling PMC can open parts >> of its code to committers from other Apache projects (IMO - that would >> need a PMC vote of course). >> >> I'm not saying that's better than your suggestion, just wanted to >> point to those alternatives. >> >> -Bertrand >> >
