You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@turbine.apache.org by Scott Eade <se...@backstagetech.com.au> on 2009/05/05 07:48:42 UTC
Re: Fulcrum components bsf and groovy obsoleted by script?
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: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
Re: Fulcrum components bsf and groovy obsoleted by script?
Posted by Scott Eade <se...@backstagetech.com.au>.
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
>
Groovy: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/codehaus/groovy/groovy-all/1.6.3/
Rhino: A search[1] shows someone is at least receptive to deploying to a
maven repository, but in the interest of allowing us to move forward I
am +1 on either proceeding with a pointer in the release notes to the
requirement to manually download the file, or even to drop a copy into SVN.
> And the unreleased BSF libraries ...
>
Can re run with 3.0-b3 from
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/bsf/bsf-utils/
Scott
[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine.rhino/search?group=mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine.rhino&q=maven&qt_g=Search+this+group
> 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: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
Re: Fulcrum components bsf and groovy obsoleted by script?
Posted by Scott Eade <se...@apache.org>.
Siegfried,
Any movement in sight on fulcrum-script?
Cheers,
Scott
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Siegfried Goeschl
<si...@it20one.at> 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: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
Re: Fulcrum components bsf and groovy obsoleted by script?
Posted by Siegfried Goeschl <si...@it20one.at>.
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: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
Re: Fulcrum components bsf and groovy obsoleted by script?
Posted by Scott Eade <se...@backstagetech.com.au>.
<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: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
Re: Fulcrum components bsf and groovy obsoleted by script?
Posted by Siegfried Goeschl <si...@it20one.at>.
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: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org