On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> wrote: > ...I would think that BindingValueProvider services inject value bindings > for particular script languages and not particular script interpreter > implementations. For example a BindingValueProvider for JavaScript might > provide bindings for JavaScript in general not for the Rhino > implementation in particular. > > Hence the binding would rather be for the language than for the concrete > script engine....
I agree, makes sense. Should we keep backwards compatibility by using a new property name for this new convention? We might still want to provide for "sub-languages" , like "javascript" for generic bindings and "javascript/foo" for bindings which only apply to the foo engine. Might be YAGNI...I don't have an actual use case at this point. -Bertrand
