You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@commons.apache.org by "Laird J. Nelson" <la...@comcast.net> on 2003/07/13 15:33:54 UTC
[jelly] Jelly and BSF?
I'm not entirely sure of the ground I'm standing on here, but what would
it take to make Jelly a BSF-compliant scripting language? Is that a
meaningful question?
Laird
--
ljnelson94@alumni.amherst.edu
Re: [jelly] Jelly and BSF?
Posted by Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>.
OK, it's dead simple... have a look at
${JELLY_HOME}/src/java/org/apache/commons/jelly/Jelly.java
Maybe there are a little bit of classloader issues...
Is there a "compile-time" in BSF ?
Paul
On Lundi, juil 14, 2003, at 17:03 Europe/Paris, Anthony Eden wrote:
> The advantage is to allow applications which use BSF to use Jelly
> without needing to code directly to the Jelly engine.
>
> Sincerely,
> Anthony Eden
>
> Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>> On Dimanche, juil 13, 2003, at 15:33 Europe/Paris, Laird J. Nelson
>> wrote:
>>> I'm not entirely sure of the ground I'm standing on here, but what
>>> would
>>> it take to make Jelly a BSF-compliant scripting language? Is that a
>>> meaningful question?
>> Looks very decent to me.
>> What's more in a bsf connection than connecting some context and
>> providing bean access ?
>> The thing is, jelly already does behave in this way (addressing
>> bean-properties by names at least)... so what would be the advantage >> ?
>> The startup/packaging ? (this is where, indeed, to me, jelly is a bit
>> painful)
>> Paul
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: [jelly] Jelly and BSF?
Posted by Anthony Eden <me...@anthonyeden.com>.
The advantage is to allow applications which use BSF to use Jelly
without needing to code directly to the Jelly engine.
Sincerely,
Anthony Eden
Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>
> On Dimanche, juil 13, 2003, at 15:33 Europe/Paris, Laird J. Nelson wrote:
>
>> I'm not entirely sure of the ground I'm standing on here, but what would
>> it take to make Jelly a BSF-compliant scripting language? Is that a
>> meaningful question?
>
>
> Looks very decent to me.
> What's more in a bsf connection than connecting some context and
> providing bean access ?
>
> The thing is, jelly already does behave in this way (addressing
> bean-properties by names at least)... so what would be the advantage ?
> The startup/packaging ? (this is where, indeed, to me, jelly is a bit
> painful)
>
> Paul
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [jelly] Jelly and BSF?
Posted by Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>.
On Dimanche, juil 13, 2003, at 15:33 Europe/Paris, Laird J. Nelson
wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure of the ground I'm standing on here, but what
> would
> it take to make Jelly a BSF-compliant scripting language? Is that a
> meaningful question?
Looks very decent to me.
What's more in a bsf connection than connecting some context and
providing bean access ?
The thing is, jelly already does behave in this way (addressing
bean-properties by names at least)... so what would be the advantage ?
The startup/packaging ? (this is where, indeed, to me, jelly is a bit
painful)
Paul