On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Rony G. Flatscher
<rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
>
>
> On 06.08.2011 18:41, sebb wrote:
>> On 6 August 2011 08:40, Henri Yandell <bay...@generationjava.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> 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: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org

Reply via email to