Can't do that.  There are a number of operations that occur inside of our 
wrappers that require pure Java.

-----Original Message-----
From: nashorn-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net 
[mailto:nashorn-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Tal Liron
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:43 PM
To: nashorn-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Docs/examples for JSAdapter

Rick, have you considered writing a wrapper library in pure JavaScript over the 
harsher Java-written API? Users won't even have to know that Java is being 
called behind the scenes.

It's much more natural to write such things in JavaScript, and it would also be 
more portable to other JS engines (Rhino). I've done this quite a bit!

On 10/23/2013 12:58 AM, Rick Bullotta wrote:
> I totally agree on the benefit of calling Java directly.  I just want to 
> create a seamless DSL for my users.
>
> So subclassing JSObject is the only way it seems (e.g. an interface-based 
> approach wouldn't work).  What about a hybrid interface + annotation based 
> approach?   Annotate the class to tell it to dynalink, and have an interface 
> that implements getMember, getSlot, etc...
>
> Is that possible?
>

Reply via email to