Hi Julian, > On 18 Feb 2021, at 11:50, Julian Sedding <jsedd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As it seems you are renaming packages, just a question from the side > line. I haven't followed the discussion closely, but I always wondered > why the package name contains the term "bundle"? Is it because the > scripts are "bundled"? Wouldn't "precompiled" be more expressive and > maybe also a little more generic? Maybe we want to provide precompiled > scripts in a way that cannot be considered "bundled" in the future.
The scripts are first and foremost bundled - the main goal of the whole work was to have an explicit chain of dependencies and requirements for scripting. The fact that they are precompiled is secondary to this and it’s not a requirement [0], but it does help to reduce the load and the footprint of the instance. The current implementation can work with raw scripts [1] similarly to precompiled ones; it can even compile them at runtime like before, assuming the associated ScriptEngine implements Compilable (Rhino + HTL for now AFAIK). Regards, Radu [0] - https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-scripting-core/blob/bbd6fde64a2f3a5ea64c6e85a903d3737e9c1ef5/src/main/java/org/apache/sling/scripting/core/impl/bundled/ScriptContextProvider.java#L135 [1] - https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-scripting-core/blob/bbd6fde64a2f3a5ea64c6e85a903d3737e9c1ef5/src/main/java/org/apache/sling/scripting/core/impl/bundled/Script.java#L89
