Build failed in Jenkins: Polygene(JavaEdition)-develop-java8-checkDists #149

See Changes: [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - Doc fixes [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - Docs; can't figure out how to do alignments properly in -- [...truncated

Build failed in Jenkins: Polygene(JavaEdition)-develop-java9-check #102

See Changes: [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - Doc fixes [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - Docs; can't figure out how to do alignments properly in -- [...truncated 669.

Build failed in Jenkins: Polygene(JavaEdition)-develop-java8-check #302

See Changes: [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - Doc fixes [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - Docs; can't figure out how to do alignments properly in -- [...truncated 357.

Build failed in Jenkins: Polygene(JavaEdition)-develop-java8-checkDists #148

See Changes: [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - JSR-223 support, allowing any Java Scripting API language [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - Updated documentation and added more languages. [niclas] POLYGEN

Build failed in Jenkins: Polygene(JavaEdition)-develop-java9-check #101

See Changes: [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - JSR-223 support, allowing any Java Scripting API language [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - Updated documentation and added more languages. [niclas] POLYGENE-29

Build failed in Jenkins: Polygene(JavaEdition)-develop-java8-check #301

See Changes: [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - JSR-223 support, allowing any Java Scripting API language [niclas] POLYGENE-29 - Updated documentation and added more languages. [niclas] POLYGENE-29

Re: javax.script

So, I have an isolated version running. A performance test would be "interesting"... This is now in libraries/scripting and I am dropping the libraries/lang-* as they are no longer required. Also, there are tons of languages that are integrated into the javax.script for JVM. These I found by sear

Re: setAccessible( true )

Yeah, already pre-1.0 we were fighting to move all setAccessible() to model creation where they belong and ensure none were executed in runtime. IF they have snuck back into runtime, then yes they should be pushed back. IF they are simply called too many times in bootstrap, then I don't worry too m

Re: javax.script

Ok, I will try to figure out if single compile per composite type is possible. My initial finding is that it is not. Expect it to complete today. On Apr 8, 2017 20:58, "Paul Merlin" wrote: Having a script scope per composite instance makes sense to me. Script scopes allows scripts to hold state

setAccessible( true )

Gang, We use accessibleObject.setAccessible( true ) a bit too agressively. This is a performance killer because of the JVM security checks it implies. Some profiling showed me that's it's often on the critical path, Well that's because I profiled the bootstrap phase for most of the cases. BTW, th

Build failed in Jenkins: Polygene(JavaEdition)-develop-java8-checkDists #147

See Changes: [paulmerlin] Refine InvalidCompositeException -- [...truncated 438.78 KB...] Using Dockerfile '

Re: Strange behavior in build/test

Niclas, I fixed the issue by clearing the ThreadLocal in InvalidCompositeException after generating the report. Paul Merlin a écrit : > > I can see that here too when running the tests with the Gradle daemon. > You are probably using a ThreadLocal somewhere that is not reset > properly... > > >

Re: Strange behavior in build/test

I can see that here too when running the tests with the Gradle daemon. You are probably using a ThreadLocal somewhere that is not reset properly... Niclas Hedhman a écrit : > Never mind... It seems to have recovered. ?:/ > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >> Gang, >> I

Re: javax.script

Having a script scope per composite instance makes sense to me. Script scopes allows scripts to hold state, we don't want to share state between composite instances. Just like you said, this is not a performance issue for Services. And if you need single use composites then that's probably because