On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Claude Brisson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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). > +1 > > 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. > > +1 > > 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. > > > > > > -- Thanks /Dishara
