You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com> on 2012/07/11 16:16:17 UTC
Discussion: Move Scripting Code To A Script Component
The code for scripting support is scattered across several different
components. I would like to move all scripting-related code to a
separate component called "script" or "scripting". I believe this will
help make things more modular and independent.
What do you think?
-Adrian
Re: Discussion: Move Scripting Code To A Script Component
Posted by Erwan de FERRIERES <er...@gmail.com>.
Adrian,
this is a nice idea.
so +1
2012/7/12 Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>:
> Yes, anything to do with scripting would go there.
>
> -Adrian
>
>
> On 7/12/2012 2:01 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>> would a new scripting language be in the same component.
>>
>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/12/2012 5:57 AM:
>>>
>>> I don't understand the question, sorry.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> On 7/12/2012 1:55 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> so how would this work with a new scripting , like business basic.
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/12/2012 2:56 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>> That is true for now, but I was thinking farther down the road. For now
>>>>> we could just consolidate the code in base, common, and minilang.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/12/2012 10:40 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is an interesting proposal.
>>>>>> If I well understand your proposal then the new "scripting" component
>>>>>> will depend on (mostly) all the 4 components... let me try to explain
>>>>>> with an example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A) in theory with the current setup you could enable the service
>>>>>> component and that will give you access to all the scripting engines
>>>>>> implemented under it; if not interested in web events you could
>>>>>> disable the webapp component (ok, I guess this is not really possible
>>>>>> at the moment... but it could be a goal for a future refactoring)
>>>>>> B) after your change you will need the service and scripting
>>>>>> component, but the scripting component will depend on webapps etc..
>>>>>> (because in it there are also the implementation of a few scripting
>>>>>> events)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the risk is that the change will not really make the framework more
>>>>>> modular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 12, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mini-language could be moved to the script component or it could
>>>>>>> remain its own component.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of the things that would be moved are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ScriptHelper.java, Scriptlet.java, ScriptUtil.java, GroovyUtil.java,
>>>>>>> BshUtil.java, javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory, ContextHelper.java,
>>>>>>> ScriptHelperFactoryImpl.java, ScriptHelperImpl.java,
>>>>>>> BeanShellEngine.java, GroovyBaseScript.groovy, GroovyEngine.java,
>>>>>>> ScriptEngine.java, GroovyService.java, GroovyShellService.java,
>>>>>>> GroovyShellThread.java, GroovyShellContainer.java, and
>>>>>>> GroovyEventHandler.java.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those files are scattered across 4 components.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of the things that could be removed are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.ScriptHelperFactory
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/11/2012 8:09 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> are you thinking of just mini, or js, grouvy or what ever?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/11/2012 7:16 AM:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The code for scripting support is scattered across several
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> components. I would like to move all scripting-related code to a
>>>>>>>>> separate component called "script" or "scripting". I believe this
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> help make things more modular and independent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Erwan de FERRIERES
Re: Discussion: Move Scripting Code To A Script Component
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
Yes, anything to do with scripting would go there.
-Adrian
On 7/12/2012 2:01 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> would a new scripting language be in the same component.
>
> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/12/2012 5:57 AM:
>> I don't understand the question, sorry.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> On 7/12/2012 1:55 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>> so how would this work with a new scripting , like business basic.
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/12/2012 2:56 AM:
>>>> That is true for now, but I was thinking farther down the road. For
>>>> now
>>>> we could just consolidate the code in base, common, and minilang.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On 7/12/2012 10:40 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>
>>>>> it is an interesting proposal.
>>>>> If I well understand your proposal then the new "scripting" component
>>>>> will depend on (mostly) all the 4 components... let me try to explain
>>>>> with an example.
>>>>>
>>>>> A) in theory with the current setup you could enable the service
>>>>> component and that will give you access to all the scripting engines
>>>>> implemented under it; if not interested in web events you could
>>>>> disable the webapp component (ok, I guess this is not really possible
>>>>> at the moment... but it could be a goal for a future refactoring)
>>>>> B) after your change you will need the service and scripting
>>>>> component, but the scripting component will depend on webapps etc..
>>>>> (because in it there are also the implementation of a few scripting
>>>>> events)
>>>>>
>>>>> So the risk is that the change will not really make the framework
>>>>> more
>>>>> modular.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 12, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mini-language could be moved to the script component or it could
>>>>>> remain its own component.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of the things that would be moved are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ScriptHelper.java, Scriptlet.java, ScriptUtil.java, GroovyUtil.java,
>>>>>> BshUtil.java, javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory, ContextHelper.java,
>>>>>> ScriptHelperFactoryImpl.java, ScriptHelperImpl.java,
>>>>>> BeanShellEngine.java, GroovyBaseScript.groovy, GroovyEngine.java,
>>>>>> ScriptEngine.java, GroovyService.java, GroovyShellService.java,
>>>>>> GroovyShellThread.java, GroovyShellContainer.java, and
>>>>>> GroovyEventHandler.java.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those files are scattered across 4 components.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of the things that could be removed are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.ScriptHelperFactory
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/11/2012 8:09 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>> are you thinking of just mini, or js, grouvy or what ever?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/11/2012 7:16 AM:
>>>>>>>> The code for scripting support is scattered across several
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> components. I would like to move all scripting-related code to a
>>>>>>>> separate component called "script" or "scripting". I believe this
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> help make things more modular and independent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Discussion: Move Scripting Code To A Script Component
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
would a new scripting language be in the same component.
Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/12/2012 5:57 AM:
> I don't understand the question, sorry.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 7/12/2012 1:55 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> so how would this work with a new scripting , like business basic.
>>
>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/12/2012 2:56 AM:
>>> That is true for now, but I was thinking farther down the road. For now
>>> we could just consolidate the code in base, common, and minilang.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> On 7/12/2012 10:40 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> Adrian,
>>>>
>>>> it is an interesting proposal.
>>>> If I well understand your proposal then the new "scripting" component
>>>> will depend on (mostly) all the 4 components... let me try to explain
>>>> with an example.
>>>>
>>>> A) in theory with the current setup you could enable the service
>>>> component and that will give you access to all the scripting engines
>>>> implemented under it; if not interested in web events you could
>>>> disable the webapp component (ok, I guess this is not really possible
>>>> at the moment... but it could be a goal for a future refactoring)
>>>> B) after your change you will need the service and scripting
>>>> component, but the scripting component will depend on webapps etc..
>>>> (because in it there are also the implementation of a few scripting
>>>> events)
>>>>
>>>> So the risk is that the change will not really make the framework more
>>>> modular.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 12, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mini-language could be moved to the script component or it could
>>>>> remain its own component.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of the things that would be moved are:
>>>>>
>>>>> ScriptHelper.java, Scriptlet.java, ScriptUtil.java, GroovyUtil.java,
>>>>> BshUtil.java, javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory, ContextHelper.java,
>>>>> ScriptHelperFactoryImpl.java, ScriptHelperImpl.java,
>>>>> BeanShellEngine.java, GroovyBaseScript.groovy, GroovyEngine.java,
>>>>> ScriptEngine.java, GroovyService.java, GroovyShellService.java,
>>>>> GroovyShellThread.java, GroovyShellContainer.java, and
>>>>> GroovyEventHandler.java.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those files are scattered across 4 components.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of the things that could be removed are:
>>>>>
>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.ScriptHelperFactory
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/11/2012 8:09 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>> are you thinking of just mini, or js, grouvy or what ever?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/11/2012 7:16 AM:
>>>>>>> The code for scripting support is scattered across several different
>>>>>>> components. I would like to move all scripting-related code to a
>>>>>>> separate component called "script" or "scripting". I believe this
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> help make things more modular and independent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: Discussion: Move Scripting Code To A Script Component
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
I don't understand the question, sorry.
-Adrian
On 7/12/2012 1:55 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> so how would this work with a new scripting , like business basic.
>
> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/12/2012 2:56 AM:
>> That is true for now, but I was thinking farther down the road. For now
>> we could just consolidate the code in base, common, and minilang.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> On 7/12/2012 10:40 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> Adrian,
>>>
>>> it is an interesting proposal.
>>> If I well understand your proposal then the new "scripting" component
>>> will depend on (mostly) all the 4 components... let me try to explain
>>> with an example.
>>>
>>> A) in theory with the current setup you could enable the service
>>> component and that will give you access to all the scripting engines
>>> implemented under it; if not interested in web events you could
>>> disable the webapp component (ok, I guess this is not really possible
>>> at the moment... but it could be a goal for a future refactoring)
>>> B) after your change you will need the service and scripting
>>> component, but the scripting component will depend on webapps etc..
>>> (because in it there are also the implementation of a few scripting
>>> events)
>>>
>>> So the risk is that the change will not really make the framework more
>>> modular.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mini-language could be moved to the script component or it could
>>>> remain its own component.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the things that would be moved are:
>>>>
>>>> ScriptHelper.java, Scriptlet.java, ScriptUtil.java, GroovyUtil.java,
>>>> BshUtil.java, javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory, ContextHelper.java,
>>>> ScriptHelperFactoryImpl.java, ScriptHelperImpl.java,
>>>> BeanShellEngine.java, GroovyBaseScript.groovy, GroovyEngine.java,
>>>> ScriptEngine.java, GroovyService.java, GroovyShellService.java,
>>>> GroovyShellThread.java, GroovyShellContainer.java, and
>>>> GroovyEventHandler.java.
>>>>
>>>> Those files are scattered across 4 components.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the things that could be removed are:
>>>>
>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.ScriptHelperFactory
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On 7/11/2012 8:09 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>> are you thinking of just mini, or js, grouvy or what ever?
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/11/2012 7:16 AM:
>>>>>> The code for scripting support is scattered across several different
>>>>>> components. I would like to move all scripting-related code to a
>>>>>> separate component called "script" or "scripting". I believe this
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> help make things more modular and independent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Discussion: Move Scripting Code To A Script Component
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
so how would this work with a new scripting , like business basic.
Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/12/2012 2:56 AM:
> That is true for now, but I was thinking farther down the road. For now
> we could just consolidate the code in base, common, and minilang.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 7/12/2012 10:40 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Adrian,
>>
>> it is an interesting proposal.
>> If I well understand your proposal then the new "scripting" component
>> will depend on (mostly) all the 4 components... let me try to explain
>> with an example.
>>
>> A) in theory with the current setup you could enable the service
>> component and that will give you access to all the scripting engines
>> implemented under it; if not interested in web events you could
>> disable the webapp component (ok, I guess this is not really possible
>> at the moment... but it could be a goal for a future refactoring)
>> B) after your change you will need the service and scripting
>> component, but the scripting component will depend on webapps etc..
>> (because in it there are also the implementation of a few scripting
>> events)
>>
>> So the risk is that the change will not really make the framework more
>> modular.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> Mini-language could be moved to the script component or it could
>>> remain its own component.
>>>
>>> Some of the things that would be moved are:
>>>
>>> ScriptHelper.java, Scriptlet.java, ScriptUtil.java, GroovyUtil.java,
>>> BshUtil.java, javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory, ContextHelper.java,
>>> ScriptHelperFactoryImpl.java, ScriptHelperImpl.java,
>>> BeanShellEngine.java, GroovyBaseScript.groovy, GroovyEngine.java,
>>> ScriptEngine.java, GroovyService.java, GroovyShellService.java,
>>> GroovyShellThread.java, GroovyShellContainer.java, and
>>> GroovyEventHandler.java.
>>>
>>> Those files are scattered across 4 components.
>>>
>>> Some of the things that could be removed are:
>>>
>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.ScriptHelperFactory
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> On 7/11/2012 8:09 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>> are you thinking of just mini, or js, grouvy or what ever?
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/11/2012 7:16 AM:
>>>>> The code for scripting support is scattered across several different
>>>>> components. I would like to move all scripting-related code to a
>>>>> separate component called "script" or "scripting". I believe this will
>>>>> help make things more modular and independent.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: Discussion: Move Scripting Code To A Script Component
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
That is true for now, but I was thinking farther down the road. For now
we could just consolidate the code in base, common, and minilang.
-Adrian
On 7/12/2012 10:40 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> it is an interesting proposal.
> If I well understand your proposal then the new "scripting" component will depend on (mostly) all the 4 components... let me try to explain with an example.
>
> A) in theory with the current setup you could enable the service component and that will give you access to all the scripting engines implemented under it; if not interested in web events you could disable the webapp component (ok, I guess this is not really possible at the moment... but it could be a goal for a future refactoring)
> B) after your change you will need the service and scripting component, but the scripting component will depend on webapps etc.. (because in it there are also the implementation of a few scripting events)
>
> So the risk is that the change will not really make the framework more modular.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> Mini-language could be moved to the script component or it could remain its own component.
>>
>> Some of the things that would be moved are:
>>
>> ScriptHelper.java, Scriptlet.java, ScriptUtil.java, GroovyUtil.java, BshUtil.java, javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory, ContextHelper.java, ScriptHelperFactoryImpl.java, ScriptHelperImpl.java, BeanShellEngine.java, GroovyBaseScript.groovy, GroovyEngine.java, ScriptEngine.java, GroovyService.java, GroovyShellService.java, GroovyShellThread.java, GroovyShellContainer.java, and GroovyEventHandler.java.
>>
>> Those files are scattered across 4 components.
>>
>> Some of the things that could be removed are:
>>
>> org.ofbiz.base.util.ScriptHelperFactory
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> On 7/11/2012 8:09 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>> are you thinking of just mini, or js, grouvy or what ever?
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/11/2012 7:16 AM:
>>>> The code for scripting support is scattered across several different
>>>> components. I would like to move all scripting-related code to a
>>>> separate component called "script" or "scripting". I believe this will
>>>> help make things more modular and independent.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: Discussion: Move Scripting Code To A Script Component
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Adrian,
it is an interesting proposal.
If I well understand your proposal then the new "scripting" component will depend on (mostly) all the 4 components... let me try to explain with an example.
A) in theory with the current setup you could enable the service component and that will give you access to all the scripting engines implemented under it; if not interested in web events you could disable the webapp component (ok, I guess this is not really possible at the moment... but it could be a goal for a future refactoring)
B) after your change you will need the service and scripting component, but the scripting component will depend on webapps etc.. (because in it there are also the implementation of a few scripting events)
So the risk is that the change will not really make the framework more modular.
Jacopo
On Jul 12, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Mini-language could be moved to the script component or it could remain its own component.
>
> Some of the things that would be moved are:
>
> ScriptHelper.java, Scriptlet.java, ScriptUtil.java, GroovyUtil.java, BshUtil.java, javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory, ContextHelper.java, ScriptHelperFactoryImpl.java, ScriptHelperImpl.java, BeanShellEngine.java, GroovyBaseScript.groovy, GroovyEngine.java, ScriptEngine.java, GroovyService.java, GroovyShellService.java, GroovyShellThread.java, GroovyShellContainer.java, and GroovyEventHandler.java.
>
> Those files are scattered across 4 components.
>
> Some of the things that could be removed are:
>
> org.ofbiz.base.util.ScriptHelperFactory
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 7/11/2012 8:09 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> are you thinking of just mini, or js, grouvy or what ever?
>>
>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/11/2012 7:16 AM:
>>> The code for scripting support is scattered across several different
>>> components. I would like to move all scripting-related code to a
>>> separate component called "script" or "scripting". I believe this will
>>> help make things more modular and independent.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Discussion: Move Scripting Code To A Script Component
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
Mini-language could be moved to the script component or it could remain
its own component.
Some of the things that would be moved are:
ScriptHelper.java, Scriptlet.java, ScriptUtil.java, GroovyUtil.java,
BshUtil.java, javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory, ContextHelper.java,
ScriptHelperFactoryImpl.java, ScriptHelperImpl.java,
BeanShellEngine.java, GroovyBaseScript.groovy, GroovyEngine.java,
ScriptEngine.java, GroovyService.java, GroovyShellService.java,
GroovyShellThread.java, GroovyShellContainer.java, and
GroovyEventHandler.java.
Those files are scattered across 4 components.
Some of the things that could be removed are:
org.ofbiz.base.util.ScriptHelperFactory
-Adrian
On 7/11/2012 8:09 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> are you thinking of just mini, or js, grouvy or what ever?
>
> Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/11/2012 7:16 AM:
>> The code for scripting support is scattered across several different
>> components. I would like to move all scripting-related code to a
>> separate component called "script" or "scripting". I believe this will
>> help make things more modular and independent.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>>
Re: Discussion: Move Scripting Code To A Script Component
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
are you thinking of just mini, or js, grouvy or what ever?
Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/11/2012 7:16 AM:
> The code for scripting support is scattered across several different
> components. I would like to move all scripting-related code to a
> separate component called "script" or "scripting". I believe this will
> help make things more modular and independent.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Adrian
>
>
Re: Discussion: Move Scripting Code To A Script Component
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
It's not quite clear to me
Jacques
From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@sandglass-software.com>
> The code for scripting support is scattered across several different
> components. I would like to move all scripting-related code to a
> separate component called "script" or "scripting". I believe this will
> help make things more modular and independent.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Adrian
>