Siegfried, Any movement in sight on fulcrum-script?
Cheers, Scott On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Siegfried Goeschl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Scott, > > I committed my changes but I need to do a couple of other fulcrum releases > ... > > Cheers, > > Siegfried Goeschl > > On 23.04.10 15:30, Scott Eade wrote: >> >> <gentle>ping</gentle> >> >> Scott >> >> On 6/05/2009 3:26 AM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote: >>> >>> Hi Scott, >>> >>> thanks for the gentle reminder ... >>> >>> +) I have an updated version based on the final JSR-223 release (but not >>> committed) that works for Groovy and Rhino >>> +) this implementation is already using the libraries from >>> https://scripting.dev.java.net/ >>> +) the main problem I had is supporting JDK 1.5 which I solved at >>> ApacheCon - the non-released bsf-api-3.0 is an ASF implementation for >>> JSR-223 >>> +) so fulcrum-script is a JDK1.5+ component >>> >>> So the only thing which stopped me from committing is that the various >>> ScriptEngine (Groovy, Rhino) implementation are not on any M2 repo - I >>> currently keep them in a lib directory and tell M2 to pick them up from >>> there. BTW, I'm pretty sure that https://scripting.dev.java.net/ was >>> not BSD licenced a while ago. >>> >>> Anyway - how to handle the ScriptEngine libraries >>> >>> +) M2 repo upload request but there are no official releases for the >>> them ... :-( >>> +) put them in our SVN repo in a "lib" directory with PMC blessing >>> >>> And the unreleased BSF libraries ... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Siegfried Goeschl >>> >>> PS: I have already two kids sitting on my lap - need a break >>> >>> >>> >>> PS: Many thanks to Felix Meschberger regarding BSF >>> >>> Scott Eade wrote: >>>> >>>> It appears that JSR-223 is bit of a mixed bag. >>>> >>>> As Siegfried has said below there were changes to the spec between its >>>> 1.0 release and its inclusion in JDK 6: >>>> >>>> * Namespace was renamed to Bindings >>>> * SimpleNamespace became SimpleBindings >>>> * Invocable.invoke() methods became Invocable.invokeFunction(String >>>> Object...) and Invocable.invokeMethod(Object, String Object...) >>>> [note the use of varargs] >>>> * there may be one or two other small changes. >>>> >>>> You can download a bunch of ScriptEngine implementations from >>>> https://scripting.dev.java.net/ - I presume these all work with JDK 6, >>>> certainly the JavaScript one does. Note that JDK 6 on Windows >>>> includes Rhino and the com.sun.script implementation of ScriptEngine, >>>> but since scripting engines are optional you cannot actually rely on >>>> this being present (e.g. JDK 6 on OS X does not come with Rhino). To >>>> use Rhino on OS X with JDK 6 you need the java.net ScriptEngine >>>> implementation (which comes in a package named com.sun.phobos.script >>>> and appears to work nicely with a standard Rhino download). The >>>> java.net implementation is not available in a maven repository (though >>>> it is BSD licensed and is not a huge amount of code). >>>> >>>> AFAICT there is no stand alone version of javax.script that has been >>>> updated to reflect the above changes so as to support JDK versions >>>> prior to 6. I did come across an Apache ScriptEngine implementation >>>> for Rhino at >>>> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/sling/trunk/bundles/scripting/javascript/ >>>> >>>> - sling seems to indicate that JDK 5 is okay, so I am not sure what >>>> they are doing. >>>> >>>> What do people think of saying that fulcrum-script is a JDK 6+ >>>> component? fulcrum-bsf/fulcrum-groovy could be retained in some form >>>> to support JDK< 6 (note that there is chatter about a new release of >>>> BSF). >>>> >>>> Of course if Siegfried can convince the JSR-223 spec lead to release a >>>> stand alone update to the javax.script API then fulcrum-script should >>>> be able to use it to support JDK< 6, but until then... (can JDK 1.4 >>>> code pass vararg arguments such as Object... as Object[]?) >>>> >>>> I have patches here to update fulcrum-script to work with JDK 6, but I >>>> won't commit them without comment from Siegfried. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> Siegfried Goeschl wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Thomas, >>>>> >>>>> some historical background >>>>> >>>>> +) I needed a scripting integration for one of my products >>>>> +) I had a look at BSF and found it largely deserted >>>>> +) I wrote fulcrum-groovy but groovy was never stable enough for >>>>> production usage >>>>> +) I discovered the brand new JSR-223 and it gives me a script >>>>> compile functionality to improve performance ... yippie >>>>> +) Sun still worked on the JSR-223 spec (being part of JDK 1.6) and >>>>> provided samples and libraries to be downloaded >>>>> +) I got fulcrum-script it running in this ver early state >>>>> (pre-final) using JavaScript and Groovy >>>>> +) unfortunately Sun made a last minute change to the final Spec >>>>> +) I got in touch with the JSR-223 spec lead and he told me that Sun >>>>> might publish a final javax.script library to be used with JDK 1.4 >>>>> >>>>> Soo far so good >>>>> >>>>> +) I downloaded the final spec and they have an updated javax.script >>>>> +) I have a look to see if it is working somehow under with fulcrum >>>>> and JDK 1.4 >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Siegfried Goeschl >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thomas Vandahl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> My understanding of the intention of fucrum-script is that it >>>>>> supports all JSR-223 implementations of scripting engines. Would >>>>>> that be a true replacement for the other scripting components? I >>>>>> would like to get rid of them then. Your comments are welcomed. >>>>>> Especially Siegfrieds as we already talked about the subject but I >>>>>> cannot remember the outcome... >>>>>> >>>>>> Bye, Thomas. >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
