sebb wrote: > On 24/03/2009, Rony G. Flatscher (Apache) <r...@apache.org> wrote: > >> sebb wrote: >> > On 24/03/2009, ant elder <ant.el...@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
