On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at> wrote: > > On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher >> <rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at> wrote: >> >>> On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote: >>> >>>>> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. >>>>> >>>>> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going >>>>> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more >>>>> chance of activity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF. >>>> There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x. >>>> Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs. >>>> >>>> >>> Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few >>> bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating >>> a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223 >>> environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the >>> case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines >>> exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my >>> table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I >>> would like to apply them to the official 2.x. >>> >> Fair enough request. >> >> Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we: >> >> * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF. >> * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons? >> * Move to the Attic. >> >> --- >> >> How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit >> was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is >> to say "Game Over". If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out >> with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at >> first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project. >> > Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an > updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then > be put into the attic. Ideally a POM for it would be great, however I > can not promise as I have no working knowledge of defining Maven POMs > (however I can read them ;) ). This way older scripting engines for > which no JSR-223 bindings exist can still be deployed by Java > applications. It would be important to make the attic version easily > findable and downloadable. > > --- > > Also, I would like to stress the following point, which may be easily > overseen: BSF 3.x needs to stay alive as it implements the JSR-223 specs
Is it alive though? No user email in 2010. One user email in 2011 having trouble building, but no answer. 3.1 released by Sebb in 2010. 3.0 in 2009. Which is good stuff, especially if there is a plan for a 3.2. > (javax.script) that Sun introduced with Java 1.6. BSF 3.x runs on Java > 1.4 and up and such allows creation and deployment of applications with > scripts starting from Java 1.4. Not sure whether it got incorporated > into Harmony, but that would be probably a proper place to live on (it > is the javax.script implementation Harmony needs to be compatible with > Java 1.6 in that area as well). Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone started committing a few patches in July). I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
