I guess those vendors don't already have internal classes for Bindings and ScriptContext. So they can use the simple versions provided by the JSR. It's a bit different for us, since we already implement related concepts, so the adequate approach here is to use some wrapping around our already existing classes (around Context for the Bindings, and around VelocityInstance for the ScriptContext, if I understand correctly).
The case of the ScriptEngineManager is totally different. We don't have such a thing, and we need it. Plus, it's not an optional piece of the JSR classes like the Simple* classes. We have to use it directly, of course. Claude On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 20:40:18 +0530 Dishara Wijewardana <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > This is to get to know the $subject. > > Because I have seen in some JSR 223 vendors, they directly reusing > some of inbuilt classes that comes with this API. > There are, such built in classes like > javax.script.ScriptEngineManager, SimpleBindings and > SimpleScriptContext. > > But as I feel, if we use SimpleScriptContext, the velocity context > behavior may dismiss from our implementation. > But ScriptEngineManager can be directly use as I feel. > > *This is just an initial thought* from me, and how these really would > impact or whether we can reuse those classes/or can't may arise > during the implementation of VelocityScriptEngineManager. I have > already implemented VelocityScriptEngineFactory and will commit that > too ASAP. > > Will update the dev of this regarding $subject in future. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
