On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Rony G. Flatscher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 06.08.2011 18:41, sebb wrote: >> On 6 August 2011 08:40, Henri Yandell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Rony G. Flatscher >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher >>>>> <[email protected]> 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. >>> >> Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to >> me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it. >> > +1
Could one of you propose that to Commons? Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
