You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to bsf-dev@jakarta.apache.org by ant elder <an...@gmail.com> on 2009/03/24 12:06:06 UTC
Re: A little remark ad "compatibility" of BSF3 ... (Re: svn commit:
r757581 - in /jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3: ./ testing/jruby-1.1.2/
testing/jruby-1.1.2/src/test/java/org/apache/bsf/testing/javascript/
testing/jruby-1.2.0/ testing/jruby-1.2.0/src/test/j
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
<Ro...@wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
>> Modified: jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES?rev=757581&r1=757580&r2=757581&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES (original)
>> +++ jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES Mon Mar 23 22:59:29 2009
>> @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
>> -Apache BSF 3 Beta3 Release Notes
>> ---------------------------------
>> -
>> -Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the Java Platform APIs.
>> -Note that this software hasn't been tested with the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore is not a
>> -compatible implementation of JSR-223.
>> -
>> -This 3.0-beta3 release is a maintenance release update to support for the latest releases
>> -of various script language engines.
>> +Apache BSF 3 Beta3 Release Notes
>> +--------------------------------
>> +
>> +Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the Java Platform APIs.
>> +Note that this software hasn't been tested with the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore is not a
>> +compatible implementation of JSR-223.
>> +
>> +This 3.0-beta3 release is a maintenance release update to support for the latest releases
>> +of various script language engines.
>>
>> Propchange: jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> svn:eol-style = native
>>
> Although we have no TCK of JSR-223 (package javax.script) to run BSF3
> against, we still are compatible to the specification! As such any
> JSR-223 scripting language and scripts should be able to run against
> BSF3. One important point about BSF3 is the possibility it opens to let
> Java 1.4 and 5 use JSR-223 scripting.
>
> Now, not being a native English speaker I cannot really come up with a
> text that expresses this (we implement the documented "javax.script"
> package and as such it is compatible with the specifications, but the
> concrete implementation of Java 6 of java.scriptx may differ in
> behaviour slightly, which only could be tested if having the TCK for
> JSR-223 available to us, which it is not).
>
> Maybe you could come up with some sentence that could make that clear,
> as otherwise I fear that interested potential users are shied away,
> expecting BSF3 not to be compatible with JSR-223?
>
> Regards,
>
> ---rony
>
That sentence is a direct copy from an email when this was discussed a
while back [1], though I agree it could sound better. How about
changing "is not a compatible implementation" to "can not claim to be
a compatible implementation", so:
"Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the
Java Platform APIs. Note that this software hasn't been tested with
the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore can not claim to be a compatible
implementation of JSR-223."
...ant
[1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/ly67fgalxi3aej73
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: A little remark ad "compatibility" of BSF3 ... (Re: svn commit:
r757581 - in /jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3: ./ testing/jruby-1.1.2/
testing/jruby-1.1.2/src/test/java/org/apache/bsf/testing/javascript/
testing/jruby-1.2.0/ testing/jruby-1.2.0/src/test/j
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 24/03/2009, Rony G. Flatscher <Ro...@wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 24/03/2009, Rony G. Flatscher (Apache) <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> sebb wrote:
> >> > On 24/03/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> That sentence is a direct copy from an email when this was discussed a
> >>>>
> >> >> while back [1], though I agree it could sound better. How about
> >> >> changing "is not a compatible implementation" to "can not claim to be
> >> >> a compatible implementation", so:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the
> >> >> Java Platform APIs. Note that this software hasn't been tested with
> >> >> the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore can not claim to be a compatible
> >> >> implementation of JSR-223."
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Seems good to me, though I think it could go further.
> >> >
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >
> > In particular, it would be useful to mention that this implementation
> > runs on Java 1.4+ whereas AIUI Java 1.6 is the first version which
> > includes the API.
> >
>
> Yes, I think this is a very important piece of information for all those
> Java coders who have to address Java 1.4+ environments in the business
> world.
>
> Also, AFAIK, Harmony uses BSF3 for "javax.script", which might be an
> interesting tidbit.
>
>
> > Should probably also mention that this means that the API does not use
> > generics (not sure how many classes this affects).
> >
>
> Hmm, this should not be a problem due to signature erasing in the byte
> code (which therefore does not possess any information about the defined
> generics in the source code).
Agreed, but users of the BSF jar won't get the compile-time checks,
even if they compile using Java 1.5. I don't think this is a big
problem.
> "generication" of the "javax.script" JSR-223 was introduced quite late
> in the process, if I remember correctly.
>
>
> ---rony
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: A little remark ad "compatibility" of BSF3 ... (Re: svn commit:
r757581 - in /jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3: ./ testing/jruby-1.1.2/ testing/jruby-1.1.2/src/test/java/org/apache/bsf/testing/javascript/
testing/jruby-1.2.0/ testing/jruby-1.2.0/src/test/j
Posted by "Rony G. Flatscher" <Ro...@wu-wien.ac.at>.
sebb wrote:
> On 24/03/2009, Rony G. Flatscher (Apache) <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> sebb wrote:
>> > On 24/03/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> That sentence is a direct copy from an email when this was discussed a
>>>>
>> >> while back [1], though I agree it could sound better. How about
>> >> changing "is not a compatible implementation" to "can not claim to be
>> >> a compatible implementation", so:
>> >>
>> >> "Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the
>> >> Java Platform APIs. Note that this software hasn't been tested with
>> >> the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore can not claim to be a compatible
>> >> implementation of JSR-223."
>> >>
>> >
>> > Seems good to me, though I think it could go further.
>> >
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> In particular, it would be useful to mention that this implementation
> runs on Java 1.4+ whereas AIUI Java 1.6 is the first version which
> includes the API.
>
Yes, I think this is a very important piece of information for all those
Java coders who have to address Java 1.4+ environments in the business
world.
Also, AFAIK, Harmony uses BSF3 for "javax.script", which might be an
interesting tidbit.
> Should probably also mention that this means that the API does not use
> generics (not sure how many classes this affects).
>
Hmm, this should not be a problem due to signature erasing in the byte
code (which therefore does not possess any information about the defined
generics in the source code).
"generication" of the "javax.script" JSR-223 was introduced quite late
in the process, if I remember correctly.
---rony
Re: A little remark ad "compatibility" of BSF3 ... (Re: svn commit:
r757581 - in /jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3: ./ testing/jruby-1.1.2/
testing/jruby-1.1.2/src/test/java/org/apache/bsf/testing/javascript/
testing/jruby-1.2.0/ testing/jruby-1.2.0/src/test/j
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 24/03/2009, Rony G. Flatscher (Apache) <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> sebb wrote:
> > On 24/03/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That sentence is a direct copy from an email when this was discussed a
> >> while back [1], though I agree it could sound better. How about
> >> changing "is not a compatible implementation" to "can not claim to be
> >> a compatible implementation", so:
> >>
> >> "Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the
> >> Java Platform APIs. Note that this software hasn't been tested with
> >> the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore can not claim to be a compatible
> >> implementation of JSR-223."
> >>
> >
> > Seems good to me, though I think it could go further.
> >
>
> +1
>
In particular, it would be useful to mention that this implementation
runs on Java 1.4+ whereas AIUI Java 1.6 is the first version which
includes the API.
Should probably also mention that this means that the API does not use
generics (not sure how many classes this affects).
> > Is it a complete implementation, i.e. are all aspects of the API implemented?
> >
>
> AFAIK: yes.
>
> > Are there tests for all aspects of the API, including edge-cases?
> >
>
> Not sure.
>
> > If the TCK were used, are the developers confident would it pass?
> >
>
> AFAIK: yes. (Sanka, Nanka could you comment?)
>
>
> ---rony
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: A little remark ad "compatibility" of BSF3 ... (Re: svn commit:
r757581 - in /jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3: ./ testing/jruby-1.1.2/ testing/jruby-1.1.2/src/test/java/org/apache/bsf/testing/javascript/
testing/jruby-1.2.0/ testing/jruby-1.2.0/src/test/j
Posted by "Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)" <ro...@apache.org>.
sebb wrote:
> On 24/03/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That sentence is a direct copy from an email when this was discussed a
>> while back [1], though I agree it could sound better. How about
>> changing "is not a compatible implementation" to "can not claim to be
>> a compatible implementation", so:
>>
>> "Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the
>> Java Platform APIs. Note that this software hasn't been tested with
>> the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore can not claim to be a compatible
>> implementation of JSR-223."
>>
>
> Seems good to me, though I think it could go further.
>
+1
> Is it a complete implementation, i.e. are all aspects of the API implemented?
>
AFAIK: yes.
> Are there tests for all aspects of the API, including edge-cases?
>
Not sure.
> If the TCK were used, are the developers confident would it pass?
>
AFAIK: yes. (Sanka, Nanka could you comment?)
---rony
Re: A little remark ad "compatibility" of BSF3 ... (Re: svn commit:
r757581 - in /jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3: ./ testing/jruby-1.1.2/
testing/jruby-1.1.2/src/test/java/org/apache/bsf/testing/javascript/
testing/jruby-1.2.0/ testing/jruby-1.2.0/src/test/j
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 24/03/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
> <Ro...@wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> >> Modified: jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES
> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES?rev=757581&r1=757580&r2=757581&view=diff
> >> ==============================================================================
> >> --- jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES (original)
> >> +++ jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES Mon Mar 23 22:59:29 2009
> >> @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
> >> -Apache BSF 3 Beta3 Release Notes
> >> ---------------------------------
> >> -
> >> -Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the Java Platform APIs.
> >> -Note that this software hasn't been tested with the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore is not a
> >> -compatible implementation of JSR-223.
> >> -
> >> -This 3.0-beta3 release is a maintenance release update to support for the latest releases
> >> -of various script language engines.
> >> +Apache BSF 3 Beta3 Release Notes
> >> +--------------------------------
> >> +
> >> +Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the Java Platform APIs.
> >> +Note that this software hasn't been tested with the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore is not a
> >> +compatible implementation of JSR-223.
> >> +
> >> +This 3.0-beta3 release is a maintenance release update to support for the latest releases
> >> +of various script language engines.
> >>
> >> Propchange: jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> svn:eol-style = native
> >>
> > Although we have no TCK of JSR-223 (package javax.script) to run BSF3
> > against, we still are compatible to the specification! As such any
> > JSR-223 scripting language and scripts should be able to run against
> > BSF3. One important point about BSF3 is the possibility it opens to let
> > Java 1.4 and 5 use JSR-223 scripting.
> >
> > Now, not being a native English speaker I cannot really come up with a
> > text that expresses this (we implement the documented "javax.script"
> > package and as such it is compatible with the specifications, but the
> > concrete implementation of Java 6 of java.scriptx may differ in
> > behaviour slightly, which only could be tested if having the TCK for
> > JSR-223 available to us, which it is not).
> >
> > Maybe you could come up with some sentence that could make that clear,
> > as otherwise I fear that interested potential users are shied away,
> > expecting BSF3 not to be compatible with JSR-223?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > ---rony
> >
>
> That sentence is a direct copy from an email when this was discussed a
> while back [1], though I agree it could sound better. How about
> changing "is not a compatible implementation" to "can not claim to be
> a compatible implementation", so:
>
> "Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the
> Java Platform APIs. Note that this software hasn't been tested with
> the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore can not claim to be a compatible
> implementation of JSR-223."
Seems good to me, though I think it could go further.
Is it a complete implementation, i.e. are all aspects of the API implemented?
Are there tests for all aspects of the API, including edge-cases?
If the TCK were used, are the developers confident would it pass?
> ...ant
>
> [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/ly67fgalxi3aej73
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org