Attila, I was playing with your patch for few days, and one thing I found is annoying NullPointerException when module is not found :), I believe we should have more meaningful exception message.
I am also working on tests, using http://code.google.com/p/interoperablejs/. Were you trying to run your patch against these tests? So far code looks good, Regards, Jarek W dniu 31 stycznia 2010 20:15 użytkownik Attila Szegedi <szege...@gmail.com>napisał: > Hi all, > > I just put out the second implementation patch at < > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=540724>, against current CVS > HEAD. Check it out if you're interested. I have worked on this for I most of > my free time I can have for coding in the last 12 days, and have arrived at > a much better design than what was in the first attempt. I attached a > comment to the Bugzilla issue describing the design decisions I took. It all > feels round to me at the moment. I took care to document all classes and > interfaces in great detail. I'll proceed with writing tests for it, but if > you don't mind reviewing and trying bleeding-edge stuff, go for it. > > Attila. > > On 2010.01.19., at 23:45, Attila Szegedi wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I created a Bugzilla issue to track this work: < > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=540724> > > I already attached a patch with the implementation to the above issue, so > feel free to check it out and provide feedback. I believe that the JavaDocs > I provided are sufficiently comprehensive so that no one should have trouble > understanding how's it used. > > > > Be warned it's quite untested - I'll proceed with writing some tests > tomorrow. > > > > Attila. > > > > -- > > home: http://www.szegedi.org > > twitter: http://twitter.com/szegedi > > weblog: http://constc.blogspot.com > > > > On 2010.01.18., at 14:54, Jarosław Pałka wrote: > > > >> Count me in as well. > >> > >> Jarek > >> > >> 2010/1/18 Rapha <rspe...@gmail.com> > >> > >>> I like the idea. Are you thinking of the 1.1 spec ( > >>> http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/Modules/1.1 ) ? > >>> > >>> Raphael > >>> > >>> On Jan 17, 1:35 pm, Attila Szegedi <szege...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Folks, > >>>> > >>>> I'm contemplating adding CommonJS Modules implementation to Rhino > >>> codebase proper. I'd create org.mozilla.javascript.commonjs package to > hold > >>> it, and we could have a method similar to initStandardObjects(), i.e. > >>> initCommonJs() that'd initialize it - basically install a require() > function > >>> with the expected semantics in the top-level scope. I want leave some > of its > >>> aspects - most notably lookup of the module script - pluggable, > defined by > >>> interfaces in the org.mozilla.javascript.commonjs package, so that > specific > >>> embeddings of Rhino (JS app servers) can install their own module > resolver > >>> logic. I'd provide a default implementation for the shell too. > >>>> > >>>> As I foresee that several Rhino-based JS products will adopt CommonJS > in > >>> the near future, it seems desirable to not have all of them reinvent > the > >>> wheel (even though some already did, I'm guilty of coding my own > require() > >>> too in the next-gen version of my company's server-side JS > enviroment...). > >>>> > >>>> Opinions? > >>>> > >>>> Attila. > > _______________________________________________ > dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list > dev-tech-js-engine-rhino@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino > -- Bloguje się tutaj http://primitive.jogger.pl A czatuje tutaj jpa...@jabber.gda.pl _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list dev-tech-js-engine-rhino@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino
